Is this the RED Weapon?

[Gillvane]

Just curious, but how much better can these cameras really get? Resolution is already there, dynamic range is arguably already there, raw and lossless compression of that raw is already there, sensor size is there. Aside from perhaps some new graphite sensor that exponentially increases low light capability, these cameras will still be producing amazing images 10-20 years from now in the right hands. Is it really just an ergonomic/efficiency thing at this point?

Home screen size has a limit. People sit 9-12 feet away from a TV no matter the resolution, ever since black and white days. As the resolution got better, they didn't sit any closer. And there's an upper limit to a TV size. It can't take up the entire wall, consumers don't want that. And the screen at the theater is also limited. IMAX is cool, but generally people want to see the entire screen, not turn their head left and right to see parts of the screen because it's so big.

Smarter people than me have done the research, but it seems to me as far as IQ, the answer is yes. We're there already. We are at the point that people have to walk up 6 inches away from the screen to see the difference on the highest end, but no one watches TV that way. And consumers like the slightly soft look of film in a movie theater. We're not going to way past that look, IMO, because people don't like it.

I"m sure Red Weapon will make a great image. I personally really like the look of the Red Cameras. But yes, in terms of DR and pixel count, I don't see the point really in going higher. If the consumer can't see it, they can't get excited about it and our eyes have limits.

 

[Danielvilliers]

I think they can get far better. Integration of true manipulation of depth of field in post, focal length adjustments in post, refocusing, advance color science manipulation (just starting to touch the possibilities here)...more development in lossless compression and ease of post, super light weight for extended hand held, wireless high resolution transmission to eliminate the camera body all together. What if the body, and processing, was off set...and the lens more or less transmitted the data to the body that was tracking...you would be shooing with just a lens and a small transmitter. Also, what about internal, simple 3D, recording multiple shutter angles and frame rates at the same time...giving you the ability to record all flavors of slow motion and real time...in camera. Multiple codecs tracking in real time. Perspective manipulation and 3D real time tracking....ect....

I am dreaming...but yes...it "can" go much farther than it currently does.

Resolution, today, really depends on how you are delivering. If you are delivering to a big screen, there are definitely benefits. Also, if you are not, the ability to reframe, stabilize, and manipulate the image in post can be very valuable.

You could argue that these things take away the artistry of it all...others could argue that it enables you to capture what you would have wanted to capture in environments where it was not possible.

The closer you are to what you are saying the closer you are to a push button automatic camera. So better be a director because with these tech camera opperation will just be to point at the subject because then everything will be able to do in post. This is already happening as the automated camera studio of the BBC. So as much as the camera becomes more sofisticated the more chance is that their will be less and less valued job in the business.

 

[Danielvilliers]

Home screen size has a limit. People sit 9-12 feet away from a TV no matter the resolution, ever since black and white days. As the resolution got better, they didn't sit any closer. And there's an upper limit to a TV size. It can't take up the entire wall, consumers don't want that. And the screen at the theater is also limited. IMAX is cool, but generally people want to see the entire screen, not turn their head left and right to see parts of the screen because it's so big.

Smarter people than me have done the research, but it seems to me as far as IQ, the answer is yes. We're there already. We are at the point that people have to walk up 6 inches away from the screen to see the difference on the highest end, but no one watches TV that way. And consumers like the slightly soft look of film in a movie theater. We're not going to way past that look, IMO, because people don't like it.

I"m sure Red Weapon will make a great image. I personally really like the look of the Red Cameras. But yes, in terms of DR and pixel count, I don't see the point really in going higher. If the consumer can't see it, they can't get excited about it and our eyes have limits.

don't say that to people that think always that the camera is the limiting factor and not their craft.

 

[ReelWorksMedia]

The closer you are to what you are saying the closer you are to a push button automatic camera. So better be a director because with these tech camera opperation will just be to point at the subject because then everything will be able to do in post. This is already happening as the automated camera studio of the BBC. So as much as the camera becomes more sofisticated the more chance is that their will be less and less valued job in the business.

There is one thing you are not taking into account...the most important thing...and thats what it is your trying to say. What the point is. The human element and the reason for shooting anything. Its the main reason why anything is a success and the reason that makes the greats great. Its the most valuable thing of all....vision and purpose. The camera is still just a tool, no matter how advanced. Even the mythical camera I described could be used poorly without the creative human element.

Not saying that I'm an advocate for that mythical camera tech...just stating that the tech has a long way it "could" go.

 

[Surf it Mike]

For full pic see weapon/stealth here.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?129971-65mm-The-plot-gets-even-THICKER

@ VincienLA why even bother posting in this thread ? We all know you hate Red . Get over it move onto your beloved Sony .Of course they never have a "look" and never practise marketing stunts. LOL. Also of course lets ignore Arri's huge and beautiful 65 mm effort .....just another marketing gimmick?

P.s the pic appears to show weapon is a module that interfaces thru the side handle port.

 

[William_Robinette]

P.s the pic appears to show weapon is a module that interfaces thru the side handle port.

Just to clear it up - the Weapon is a completely new camera body with the current generation Dragon sensor in it. It is not just an interface box. It is smaller than the current brains are, it's layout slightly different. The side module shown seems to have the ability to detach and I would bet more accessories (a new side handle) will be available depending on how you want to build it out.

"Stealth" is an option you have when ordering a Weapon body to have all the markings and naming taken off. Stealth is just an option on the Weapon camera system, think of it like a different coat of paint - same body underneath.

 

[Surf it Mike]

I don't know you could be right William .....but visually the camera seems to have the same proportions as the current DSMC....but now (finally ) with more connection options . I must admit I was expecting something more "different".

 

[William_Robinette]

The body has physical dimensions that are different from the current EPIC/Scarlet brains. It looks like the fan intake has moved from the front to the back. The I/O you see in that picture is actually a module, as is the XL module (so there are 2 on the end of the brain in that picture). As you can see it is shorter than the current body. It only works with the MiniMags. It has an integrated top plate.

Think of it as a newer model year of the same car. Upgraded, nip tucked, but it didn't go from a coupe to a pickup.

 

[combatentropy]

Just curious, but how much better can these cameras really get? Resolution is already there, dynamic range is arguably already there, raw and lossless compression of that raw is already there, sensor size is there. Aside from perhaps some new graphite sensor that exponentially increases low light capability, these cameras will still be producing amazing images 10-20 years from now in the right hands. Is it really just an ergonomic/efficiency thing at this point?

Yes.

I think most of what's left is steady refinement of ergonomics and ease of use. Or I should say a rediscovery of those things by the manufacturers. For example, Sony made many nicely shaped and sized camcorders for decades. And then they made the FS100. Neutral-density filters appear and disappear. In the 90s my cameras turned on instantly. Now some cameras take a minute.

So, a refinement of things like weight and balance, boot-up times, fanlessness, and controls. By controls, I mean their layout and complexity. The camera is ISO, frame rate, and shutter speed. These should be quickly and easily changed, not buried.

I think something like the Canon XA-10, but with an interchangeable lens, large sensor, nice codec, good screen, metal body, is the end game for many of us. Others will always go with a shoulder mount.

Those little things and one big thing: global shutter.

 

[DLD]

Home screen size has a limit. People sit 9-12 feet away from a TV no matter the resolution, ever since black and white days. As the resolution got better, they didn't sit any closer.

That's not quite true. In the old days, folks used to sit as many as 20 feet away and with smaller screens too. The analog RPTV's, as they got sharper, got people within 10 feet but smaller (up to 35") tubes were just fine within 6-8.

Nowadays, people watch off tablets, laptops and PC's and can get within a foot, depending on their screen and eyesight.

And there's an upper limit to a TV size. It can't take up the entire wall, consumers don't want that.

People who buy front projectors and set up special home theater rooms certainly don't think so. Now, of course, that requires a considerable investment but there are new 4K flat screens up to 75" in size that are within many consumers budgets, with a 79" Sony selling for $7,000 (off the Brandsmart site) and 85" Samsung for $10,000 (available for $9,000 online at Big Box).

Anyway, as the 4K gets entrenched, the next step is probably not 8K but holographic and wearables.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CqUYBopWLs

 

[Grug]

The colour science and improved DR of Dragon, in a Vistavision-sized sensor, with the ability to record ProRes for a simplified workflow on lower-budget productions holds a tonne of appeal to me. Dragon already seems to have worked out most of the kinks with reliability that earlier cameras suffered from. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[KahL]

I can see their whole marketing ploy now. They will push the full frame sensor size this has and, again, ignorant people will think their projects "need" Red, or this huge sensor so they will, again, ask for Reds and think you are crazy that you'd shoot anything else. Unprofessional company but I have to admire them in same way I "admire" the team who make Transformers; it's the worst kind of junk food but it sells and sells WELL. I'll stick with Arri and Sony regardless.

+100

 

[combatentropy]

People sit 9-12 feet away from a TV no matter the resolution

Nowadays, people watch off tablets, laptops and PC's and can get within a foot

How far means nothing apart from how big.
How big means nothing apart from how far.

 

[SPZ]

Camera body reveal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWiv_55kvE

 

[Samuel H]

How far means nothing apart from how big.
How big means nothing apart from how far.

And on a confortable FoV for movies (82" screen 3m away), my eyes are just starting to see the difference between 720p and 1080p (any farther and I can't distinguish them). I may want 4K/6K for acquisition, definitely not for distribution.

 

[Emanuel]

I may want 4K/6K for acquisition, definitely not for distribution.

True. And for several reasons : ) But, I remember when you were used to include both in these same Jarred's boards... ;-)

 

[Samuel H]

Haha, well, I changed my mind on 4K-for-aquisition after shooting this fan film with lots of green screen stuff on my DSLR. I always thought 1080p was shrp enough but well, I started with 1920x1080 which with 420 meant the color resolution was just 960x540, and then I had to scale up a few shots by 150% and one even my 200%, so... well, let's say a 480x270 key is just not ok XDDD

 

[Emanuel]

LOL I knew it... you'd convert yourself, just a matter of time actually ;-)

Congrats BTW on your fan film achievement... one of best I've ever seen, finally watchable as such and genre of its own -- as matter of fact, mission accomplished, well done, very nice enjoyable showreel :thumbsup:

 

[DLD]

How far means nothing apart from how big.
How big means nothing apart from how far.

True historically but the new smart phones with a 500+ PPI screens can be used as a view finders these days, so "how close do you sit to your TV?" - an old stand-by from the big screen salesmen - no longer applies.

And on a confortable FoV for movies (82" screen 3m away), my eyes are just starting to see the difference between 720p and 1080p (any farther and I can't distinguish them). I may want 4K/6K for acquisition, definitely not for distribution.

I mentioned this before too. Last fall, I walked into a sports bar/restaurant that had a college football game on their 84" TV and, from 10-15 feet, it looked very soft to me. YMMV.

 

[Samuel H]

LOL I knew it... you'd convert yourself, just a matter of time actually ;-)

Congrats BTW on your fan film achievement... one of best I've ever seen, finally watchable as such and genre of its own -- as matter of fact, mission accomplished, well done, very nice enjoyable showreel :thumbsup:

Thanks! (though I must say I didn't make the dragon and other stuff like that; what I did was to take a commercial of the game, erase the original characters, and insert my friends instead; in a month I'll be shooting something similar where I'll have to create all the big stuff from scratch, let's see how that one goes...)

I mentioned this before too. Last fall, I walked into a sports bar/restaurant that had a college football game on their 84" TV and, from 10-15 feet, it looked very soft to me. YMMV.

Well, a 1080p screen showing crappily compressed HDTV can definitely look horrible, but then I'd argue for better codecs (H.265) or higher bitrates, not 4K. I ran my tests with looped clips and frame grabs from good blurays.