RED concerns

[FatBird19]

I'm sure that this has been expressed before, and I'm not trying to be a troll, but what if the image quality from the RED's CMOS sensor is not that great?
This camera is offering Genesis camera specs at the price of an SDX900. Doen't this make people somewhat concerned?

At that price range, I am very skeptical. Worst possible scenario, the sensor could be high grain, low color fidelity, low lattitude, bad highlight handling, and vertical smear ridden.
My hope is that the images from RED are absolutely stunning, but until I can actually see some screenshots my excitement is minimal.

It's not that I don't have faith in Jim and his team to produce the best possible camera that they are able, I just don't have faith in current CMOS technologies to produce a production quality 35mm sensor for under $18k. :D

....not trying to be a pessemist, just sayin...

[tonacidigital]

If it wasn't that great. Jim would have pulled out a long time ago and would not invest a grip of money into sensor that was mediocre. They have tested this thing (according to reports) and we'll see some footage in the fall.

"offering Genesis camera spec" I don't think ANY camera has 2450p specs. It has 5 times the res of the sony f900.

too good to be true? seems so and I am not surprised by the skepticism.

I have faith in a guy who knows good quality when he sees it. Check out his personal page which is full of photographs and tell me if you doubt his ability and vision to create the best possible camera this world has ever seen. hehe.

[Poi Boy]

Sound like pessimism to me. This team is just too good and they don't have the big corporate baggage of the other guys....they started with a clean slate. I'm certain enough that I ordered one.
Aloha
-A

[Luis Caffesse]

I would keep in mind the products which Jim has brought to market in the past. He does not seem to have a history of putting out cheap imitations. Oakley, for example, is a company that sets the trends for the industry it is in.

I would also keep in mind the team that was put together for this.
You think Graeme is going to be part of a project that puts out a high grain, low color fidelity, low lattitude, bad highlight handling, vertical smear ridden image?
:)

[craigbowman]

I'm sure that this has been expressed before, and I'm not trying to be a troll, but what if the image quality from the RED's CMOS sensor is not that great?...

Go and read the April 15 entry on this page:

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

[Jarred Land]

This team is just too good and they don't have the big corporate baggage of the other guys....they started with a clean slate. I'm certain enough that I ordered one.
Aloha
-A

nuff said.

[FatBird19]

hm, alright.

What codec will they be using for the video? Maybe it's on the site already, but I don't know.
Will it have a jpeg2000, wavelet, or H.264 base? I personally would hope for jpeg2000.


And what does it record on? (again, it might say on the site but I'm not sure)
That'd be cool if they could get permission to use P2. 600mbps 4:4:4 10bit log 4k video would be awesome! :D

[Haakon]

The codec will be variable bitrate, wavelet based.

It records to a myriad of devices, including a removable hard drive solution, removable flash drive solution, internal onboard memory, and any kind of external connection you could possibly ask for (firewire 400, firewire 800, USB 2.0, eSATA, etc.)

No P2, but there's a possibility of compact flash.

There is PLENTY of information available on this camera now, at this website, on DV Info, on HDforIndies, on Red.com, on DV.com, in downloadable podcasts, and even a parody blog. If you exhaust all of those sources and STILL have a question, well then, I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to answer it for you.

Thank you. :)

[stokestack]

The codec will be variable bitrate, wavelet based.


Let's hope that's not true. The last thing we'd want is for this camera's potential to be squandered with lossy compression.

As far as worries about CMOS go, look at Canon's digital SLRs. They're all CMOS, and have the lowest noise out there with plenty of sensitivity.

[FatBird19]

As far as worries about CMOS go, look at Canon's digital SLRs. They're all CMOS, and have the lowest noise out there with plenty of sensitivity.

Yeah, but the cheapest Canon DSLR with a full 35mm sensor is $3000 and it only shoots 3fps.
3fps for $3000 to 60fps for $18000 is a big leap, especially considering that Canon's CMOS manufacturing is some of the best out there and is still expensive.

[Haakon]

Let's hope that's not true. The last thing we'd want is for this camera's potential to be squandered with lossy compression.
I too have never been a fan of the variable bitrate mentality, but several of the people connected to the production of RED have said the codec is virtually lossless. Jim Jannard himself has indicated that the latest round of testing delivered "better than expected" results. I really don't think you have to worry about these guys building a 4K supercamera and then relying on a codec that is "lossy."

They have also mentioned that the codec is one of the things that will remain in constant development all the way through the preproduction cycle.

[adaml]

Based on Jim's comments that he's been satisfied with his digital still cameras but not with any of his HD cameras, and the fact that he uses a Canon dslr, I suspect that he'll be measuring his success to some extent on the degree to which RED image quality rivals the Canon dslr's.

I'm not saying we should expect it to equal the Canons, but that that may be the benchmark.

[dalen7]

Based on Jim's comments that he's been satisfied with his digital still cameras but not with any of his HD cameras, and the fact that he uses a Canon dslr, I suspect that he'll be measuring his success to some extent on the degree to which RED image quality rivals the Canon dslr's.

I'm not saying we should expect it to equal the Canons, but that that may be the benchmark.
He probably owns (will own) a hasselblad H2d 39megapixel for approx 31K (yes you heard the price correct for this top of line still camera, so perhaps someone needs to create a revolution in that market to...price-wise.)

peace

dalen

[Graeme_Nattress]

First, compression is a reality - get used to it. The lens compresses our 3d world of fantastic detail, as does the act of using a sensor to capture the light. "uncompressed" is never, ever truely uncompressed, other than as a step in the process where you can mathematically say no loss of data has occured. This, is nice, but often impractical.

Onto the codec - we've said it will be VBR wavelet based. This is a good thing as wavelets look good. Anyone who's used a wavelet codec can tell you that when you do push it too far, you get a bit of softness - that's it, and it holds up so much better than DCT for colour correction etc.

There's other stuff that I can't go into yet, but I don't think anyone will be unhappy with our codec decisions. As time goes on, we'll probably put up white papers on this kind of stuff, but now, we're in the thick of engineering.

Graeme

[donatello]

go with the red flow .. they will deliver ... suggestions are much more helpful then no's.. can't ..

[Stephen W]

Onto the codec - we've said it will be VBR wavelet based. This is a good thing as wavelets look good. Anyone who's used a wavelet codec can tell you that when you do push it too far, you get a bit of softness - that's it, and it holds up so much better than DCT for colour correction etc.

I don't know a lot about wavelet based codecs (ie. nothing), so was just wondering (from a post pov) how processor intensive is it and how "editable" is it?

[Graeme_Nattress]

Wavelets themselves are not processor hogs, and tend to be very editable. What does get tricky is various entropy encoding algorithms that compress the result of the wavelet transforms. Obviously, given that understanding, we're working on making sure that the result is editable.

Graeme

[Jarred Land]

Yes.. Wavelets are way easier to handle then DCT.. Wavelets can also be throttled on the fly in preview to maintain a zero dropped frame relationship... kinda like when you lower preview quality in your output monitor in a NLE.

Wavelets also dont use block encoding, which sounds great but is actually a little retarded. Using block encoding opens up a range of issues that can happen with differences in joining blocks, usually in 8 pixel blocks. Wavelets sample the entire image, and create a relationship similar to a vector.. albeit a very complex vector.

[toke lahti]

As far as worries about CMOS go, look at Canon's digital SLRs. They're all CMOS, and have the lowest noise out there with plenty of sensitivity.
Hmmm, they do have a real sensitivity of ASA 100. Going up from that is just boosting gain, which increases the noise.
Btw, Canon 1DsMkII's pixel size is 7.2 µm. Mysterium's is 5.4µm. That makes the Mysterium's pixel's area to 56% of what 1DsMkII's is. If the sensors would have same sensivity and rated same, Mysterium's sensivity would be ASA 50!

Of course moving picture camera's are rated differently, because the noise isn't so noticable with moving pictures.

CineAlta is rated as ASA 400 and it has about same pixel area than Mysterium.

What if you use Scaled resolutions with RED?
Does that increase the sensivity of cmos? Like joining several pixels to be one? And the group of pixels having just one pixel's base noise?

Sooo, if you need sensivity of ASA 500, which one is noisier RED or Vision2?

Any guesses about RED's ASA ratings?

[Graeme_Nattress]

Scaled modes shoudl reduce noise.

Graeme

[adaml]

What's the 20d pixel size?

[Jarred Land]

20d has pixel size of 6.5 microns.

[adaml]

So we're getting close. :) Given that RED will be using slightly smaller pixels, but newer technology, hopefully it will be somewhere in the range of the 20d as far as light sensitivity. I get pretty good images at 1600 and even decent ones at 3200 with the 20d. Scaled down they look really good. So 4k scaled to 2k...

Fingers crossed.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Scaling reduces noise quite nicely. And given that 4k users will probably have big lighting budgets, I think that will balance out the different noise characteristics.

Another way to think of it, is our pixels are a little bigger than HDCAM's.

Graeme

[Policar]

We can't delude ourselves in thinking the sensor will compare with the 20D. First of all, Canon has by far the best CMOS technology out there and an absurdly better S:N ratio at high sensetivites than other manufacturers. And even at 100ISO, there's some noise in the shadows.

Furthermore, noise increases the more the sensor heats up. And the pixels n RED are a little smallish. Also, you notice noise more as it "dances" than in a still image where it can be masked by high-detail areas.

Still, 400ISO at 2k with only moderate grain (about what the dvx has now on a per-pixel basis) would be fine....and I bet we can get that or much better. And near-noiseless high dynamic range 50ISO would just be outstanding. (Just like Kodak's new 50D stock.)

[WesVasher]

"our pixels are bigger"

Sounds like a good marketing slogan.

[taubkin]

We can't delude ourselves in thinking the sensor will compare with the 20D. First of all, Canon has by far the best CMOS technology out there and an absurdly better S:N ratio at high sensetivites than other manufacturers.

Well, we still can hope. What makes it impossible? To me if this camera is going to cost about 10 times what the canon cost, it "could possibly" display a technology with a similar quality, wouldn't you think?


Furthermore, noise increases the more the sensor heats up. And the pixels n RED are a little smallish.

Well, it seems RED pixels are going to be larger than canon's.


Still, 400ISO at 2k with only moderate grain (about what the dvx has now on a per-pixel basis) would be fine....and I bet we can get that or much better. And near-noiseless high dynamic range 50ISO would just be outstanding. (Just like Kodak's new 50D stock.)

I'm going to compare with the HVX. Before it came, everybody said it was going to be the perfect camera, everybody got all excited about it. Of course it is a great camera, but aside from the great specs, it has some issues that are inherent to it's price, and design. Then we saw it had flaws, a little lens fringing, not the sharpest camera around, etc. It still is a great camera, and still is a shift in paradigm.

With RED, we can expect it not to be perfect. Actually we can expect it to have some flaws. But it's promising so much, that even if it doesn't deliver all of it, in the perfectness of the spec chart, it's still going to be one hell of a camera. So I agree with your last statement. Even if it is noisier than we want it to be, it's still going to be a bargain. And we can probably kiss S16 goodbye, at least for our indie needs (music vids, short films, commercials, and even a feature, who knows!)

[Gordon JL]

I've just got a few questions; do cameras like the Genesis or the cams Lucas use also use CMOS instead of CCDs? If they do, why? Wouldn't the whole point of using CMOS be to save money (and for cameras like the Genesis, the aim doesn't seem to be to save money)? I mean, isn't this why prosumer cameras don't use CMOS, but consumer cameras now do (to make it cheap for consumers)? A theory I have is that only at the very high price range can CMOS technology compete with CCD technology; right now, the cheaper CMOS chips can't compete with CCD; this would explain why prosumer cameras do not use CMOS, but those very expensive cameras will use CMOS. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong?

Now, what is the price for a camera like the Genesis? What about the cameras George Lucas use? Based on specs alone, would it be fair to say that RED is competitive with those high-end cameras; if not, maybe even superior (in terms of the resolution, and based on specs alone)? IF this is correct, this makes me wonder; what the hell is going to happen to the rest of the cameras in a similar or higher price range, but are inferior to the RED? Another thing is, I've noticed a lot of people comparing some other new cameras to the RED, as if the quality (assuming RED is competitive with cams Lucas used) and price-range is similar to the RED! I mean, unless I have this wrong, and correct me if I am, why compare a camera that sells for say 12k to a camera that is only 5k more, but aims to be THE perfect camera (similar in quality based on specs. to the highest-end cameras out currently [the ones used by Lucas])?

[CamDiver]

The only concern I have, not being an engineer or fully conversant with specs etc, is that this camera may have a negative impact on the filming world as a whole. I work underwater and there is always a rush for the latest and greatest equipment to hit the market. Now with RED it seems that this camera will finally put an end to that ever changing world and we'll arrive with a system offering us a massive potential for image quality and sharpness. This is a good thing. However I am a bit worried that at a greater reduced price than previous hi end HD options this camera system is gonna become available to the masses in general. Anyone with a greatly reduced budget than is required at this point in time to purchase the required cameras offering this kind of imagery quality are gonna be able to start pumping out materials and stock footage. Again this is a good thing for the broadcast world and production companies as they search for stock imagery to compliment their productions.

My main concern is that the availability of this camera will drive the overall stock imagery value down. With so much more competition there will be many more outlets available to supply stock etc. I've been on the road changing cameras to keep up with the quality issue for the past 15 years and will definately look at getting RED once we have a better idea of its capabilities etc. I just hope I can get a headstart on other wet environment shooters in order to build the archives, again, from square one.

Mind you I suppose I do have the advantage of living in Palau and I get to dive and film pretty much everyday. That time spent in the water will pay dividends in the long run. Fingers crossed.

Mark.

[Policar]

Gordon, it's so much more complicated than that that it's almost not worth getting into, but.

Tradtionally CMOS chips have been MUCH cheaper and somewhat noisier (and they are always much lower power) than CCDs. Then Canon, while trying to lower its DSLRs in price figured if they could spend a lot of money to improve their CMOS technology, they could save a lot by using cheaper chips. And they developed some AMAZING technologies, resulting in CMOS chips that are much LESS noisey than 90% of competing CCDs. So the potential is there for CMOS chips to be less noisy AND cheaper.

Here's a picture taken with a $20 lens using a $700 dSLR (and a CMOS chip that probably cost Canon $50-$100 to make at MOST): http://home.comcast.net/~rwauhkonen/0000.JPG
High resolution, high dynamic range, low noise (the slight background noise is from boosting the exposure in post), high acne (it's my brother.)

So Sony and other companies decided to get in on the action and more and more DSLRS (and now digital video cameras) are using CMOS chips. They have some inherent issues (rolling shutter) that make them worse for video, but they are also cheaper, consume much less power, and and are able to refresh much faster. So in other ways they are way better for video.

George Lucas used a CCD-based cinealta ($250,000) which I've seen run uncompressed 4:4:4 on the Star Wars movies. It's good, but nowhere near as good as a $800 Canon Digital Rebel, which uses a CMOS but shoots stills. The Genesis uses a weird CCD, I believe. But it costs like a million dollars and I think the D20 (Arri) uses CMOS.

The cinealta (George Lucas's camer) is using some outdated technologies and the sensor is much smaller and lower resolution than RED's but it is still very impressive. The whole CCD versus CMOS thing is really pretty silly. Both technologies provide similar (and excellent) images, but CMOS chips are advancing much more quickly technologically and are cheaper to make.

Theoretically, Red should trounce everything but we still haven't seen images yet (and they will probably be quite grainy at 400ISO; even the D20 is grainy there...so is film stock) and the cinealta holds up decently against film when shot well. Just because George Lucas used the Cinealta doesn't mean it's best. The camera Everybody Hates Chris is shot on and the camera Scary Movie 4 was shot on are technically far superior.

Check out the Superman Returns trailer for a preview of about what we can expect. (It looks like 35mm film, by the way...no better and no worse, just lit funny.)

[Graeme_Nattress]

I don't think you have to worry. The tools don't make the image - the user does. What we're doing is only reducing the $ barrier, not the skill barrier. Look what happened in the DTP industry - it got cheap to do DTP, companies diid it in-house, kiddies did it, and it looked so bad, it wasn't long before the graphic designers were being called after to do design again, but this time, the gear was a lot cheaper for them, so they could be more profitable.

Graeme

[taubkin]

And acessible digital filmaking is a reality for some time now. Nothing really "changed"...

[CamDiver]

All agreed. There is some incredible talent out there both creatively and cinematographically. I understand the camera doesn't create the magic, its an aid to a conversant and adept user to create magic.

I'll be interested to see how it all goes. I for one will certainly be looking to take this system underwater as and when were more aware of its capabilities. When are the initial field tests?

Cheers,
Mark.

[taubkin]

All agreed. There is some incredible talent out there both creatively and cinematographically. I understand the camera doesn't create the magic, its an aid to a conversant and adept user to create magic.

That's what I want to see. True power in the hands of the most talented. I'm tired to see (esp. in the commercial/advertising area) a selection of completely incompetent DPs, bossing around and taking 3 hours to solve some simple lighting situation...

Well, maybe that will keep the same... But at least we will have better cameras! :D

[Jannard]

How many times have you shot something great and wished it was sharper, less noisy, a bigger format or had just a touch more DOF? This camera is for those times.

[CamDiver]

Everything thus far speaks for itself. This is gonna be one serious camera option. Definately looking forward to following the evolutionary trail. Are you guys also looking to develop some kind of compatible field monitoring solution?

Mark.

[KHendrix2]

A touch LESS DOF would be what we are looking for actually...

I'm looking forward to the Red. It will RULE!

[FatBird19]

A touch LESS DOF would be what we are looking for actually...


I think we all know what he meant....

[dan]

If this is Red's sensor (http://www.foveon.com/files/H.thomas_mott_IMG09500/large.jpg), I am RED:love4: If not.... I'll wait and get the blues....:crybaby:

[Jarred Land]

ha ha dan.. not the same of course :)

[dan]

wh:crybaby:uoa:crybaby: aaaaa:crybaby: aahhhhh :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:

[adaml]

Given RED's philosophy of no artificial limitations, it seems that they would offer asa/gain settings starting with the absolute cleanest possible image, whether that's 50 or 100 or whatever, and then adjustable in small increments up to the point where it's unusable. Then the user can decide what's appropriate.

Policar, thanks for the comments. It makes sense, but I'm still hoping for a good image in very low light.

[Gordon JL]

Gordon, it's so much more complicated than that that it's almost not worth getting into, but.

Tradtionally CMOS chips have been MUCH cheaper and somewhat noisier (and they are always much lower power) than CCDs. Then Canon, while trying to lower its DSLRs in price figured if they could spend a lot of money to improve their CMOS technology, they could save a lot by using cheaper chips. And they developed some AMAZING technologies, resulting in CMOS chips that are much LESS noisey than 90% of competing CCDs. So the potential is there for CMOS chips to be less noisy AND cheaper.

Here's a picture taken with a $20 lens using a $700 dSLR (and a CMOS chip that probably cost Canon $50-$100 to make at MOST): http://home.comcast.net/~rwauhkonen/0000.JPG
High resolution, high dynamic range, low noise (the slight background noise is from boosting the exposure in post), high acne (it's my brother.)

So Sony and other companies decided to get in on the action and more and more DSLRS (and now digital video cameras) are using CMOS chips. They have some inherent issues (rolling shutter) that make them worse for video, but they are also cheaper, consume much less power, and and are able to refresh much faster. So in other ways they are way better for video.

George Lucas used a CCD-based cinealta ($250,000) which I've seen run uncompressed 4:4:4 on the Star Wars movies. It's good, but nowhere near as good as a $800 Canon Digital Rebel, which uses a CMOS but shoots stills. The Genesis uses a weird CCD, I believe. But it costs like a million dollars and I think the D20 (Arri) uses CMOS.

The cinealta (George Lucas's camer) is using some outdated technologies and the sensor is much smaller and lower resolution than RED's but it is still very impressive. The whole CCD versus CMOS thing is really pretty silly. Both technologies provide similar (and excellent) images, but CMOS chips are advancing much more quickly technologically and are cheaper to make.

Theoretically, Red should trounce everything but we still haven't seen images yet (and they will probably be quite grainy at 400ISO; even the D20 is grainy there...so is film stock) and the cinealta holds up decently against film when shot well. Just because George Lucas used the Cinealta doesn't mean it's best. The camera Everybody Hates Chris is shot on and the camera Scary Movie 4 was shot on are technically far superior.

Check out the Superman Returns trailer for a preview of about what we can expect. (It looks like 35mm film, by the way...no better and no worse, just lit funny.)

Hey, thanks for the explanation Policar. So I'm thinking that most of those high-end cameras are so expensive is mostly because they are CCD based (whereas this new RED camera, which is theoretically "better" than those Lucas cameras, is MUCH cheaper because of the new CMOS chip)? What about that new camera being used to shoot Superman? So in the digital camera world, CMOS is actually considered better than CCDs (like the digital rebel xt)? Are there any CCD cameras which could compete? Also, I still couldn't figure out why currently none of the prosumer cameras use CMOS; they all rely on CCD technology. Actually, based on what you've told me, they don't even use CMOS in the VERY high end cameras either, just the consumer cameras like the HC1 (of course, RED is quickly changeing this), and digital-cameras like the CMOS RebelXT.

[gabriel]

If this is Red's sensor (http://www.foveon.com/files/H.thomas_mott_IMG09500/large.jpg), I am RED:love4: If not.... I'll wait and get the blues....:crybaby:


wow that x3 technology (http://www.foveon.com) sounds great: "The revolutionary design of Foveon X3 direct image sensors features three layers of pixels. The layers are embedded in silicon to take advantage of the fact that red, green, and blue light penetrate silicon to different depths ". I mean that is absolutely logical, the only hard thing is to measure the light and at the same time make the layers transparent... Why isn't everybody using this technology? It sounds like the best way. Maybe it is too expensive but on the other side cinealta isn't cheap too. the pictures look fantastic. Do you think red will be able to beat that?

I think most of the material of scary movie looked great but some shots were horrible and videoish. I guess it had to do with the shutter. everything was moving in a strange way. the shots were also quite dark and barely lit. maybe they slowed down the shutter speed too much or something like that. really strange...

[FatBird19]

If RED actually used an x3 chip I'd be amazed. And from what I've read, x3 is doable with current CMOS manufacturing technology so it is possible.

My guess though is that they'll be using a CMOS chip with a bayer pattern.

[Jarred Land]

My guess though is that they'll be using a CMOS chip with a bayer pattern.

bayer is what was announced.. but like everything, that could change if they arn't happy with it.

[FatBird19]

bayer is what was announced.. but like everything, that could change if they arn't happy with it.

*crosses fingers for a foveon x3 chip* (yeah right)

[gabriel]

I don't think they will use the x3 technology because of the fps problem. They say x3 can only do 4fps set on full resolution...

[gabriel]

By the way does anybody know a link where the difference between ccd and cmos is explained????

[bgundu]

By the way does anybody know a link where the difference between ccd and cmos is explained????

Go to dpreview.com and do a search