RED camera ( a message from the founder )

Graeme_Nattress said:
You basically trade resolution for the colours being on top of each other. Not a good trade when bayer pattern single chips are much much higher resolution and cheaper.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I had a Canon 10D 6 megpixels (Bayer pattern) and now own two Sigma SD9's 3.4 megapixels (Foveon).

The Sigma's are slightly sharper than the Canon, even though the "pixel count" is lower. Each Sigma pixel is capable of reading a different color by itself, while the Bayer needs to interpolate colors from neighbouring pixels.

Pixel for pixel, Foveon is better than Bayer by far, but Bayer pixel count has been skyrocketting in the past year or so to around 12 to 16 megapixels, while Foveon is still stuck at 3.4 megapixels.

Unless Foveon increases their pixel count, they're pretty well sunk.

From what I've seen:

Foveon looks more film-like, with more latitude (less highlight blowouts), while Bayer tends to make people look plasticky and smooth (perhaps because of interpolation).

The big weakness for me is that I can't shoot the Sigma Foveon with iso higher than 100, or the picture gets really noisy. 400 iso looks terrible. I understand the SD9's successor, the SD10 has improved the sensitivities by using microlenses.

The Canon 10D, on the other hand, has super clean noise free pics. I've shot dimly lit pool tournaments at 1600 iso with great success. The newest Canon 5D is even better.

While I love my foveon cameras, I don't think the Foveon chip will work well as a video sensor.... because of low light issues.:(

Hopefully the Mysterium chip will successfully combine the positive atttributes of Bayer and Foveon, though I suspect the Mysterium chip is really a Bayer, which is cheaper to make.

Go Jim Go!!! Red will be my next purchase... after my hvx200.:laugh: :laugh:
 
All I can say is this:
NOBODY should ever accuse Jarred of being a panny marketing doll. Panny has given us decent products at decent prices, and thats why most of us here like the DVCPRO family of codecs.

BUT the fact RED now has a second home on the DVXuser forum says alot.

Go Jared.
 
Yes.. i do whats best for the people, not for a company. And the Red camera is gonna make alot of people happy here... which is why it gets its own home.

Oh, and plus its christmas and i needed a little red on the site. :)
 
I'd be happy to just see footage by next christmas, or sooner, despite all means of feasibility that contradict my wishes.. I'm amazed with the HVX's downrezzed 720p 60 fps footage, so I'm probably going to have a heart attack whenever I see the highest resolution footage for the RED
 
As noted above, there are a lot of factors that go into a good image. Canon DSLR's have proven that a single chip and bayer solution does NOT limit the quality of the image. We have a lot of things to get right... sensor, A to D, DSP, etc. and we have to do it in the smallest package possible (you can always make small big, not visa versa). It is a tremendous challenge... just what we signed up for. We are already past a couple of "insurmountable hurdles"... with many more on the horizon.

Jim
 
Jim about that final cut pro remark you did...
how about a new software which would take and mix some concepts from final cut, aperture, shake and maybe discreet elements.
especially what aperture brings to raw workflow (despite some conversion issues) in terms of practicality and GUI, would be nice to have for 4k raw editing.

the red project and the example of format on your site (the canon EOS ones)
made me truly realize that an average sized raw picture is in fact the same as a 4k raw still from a camera like the red.
the difference is that the canon eos-1ds mark II can take 4 pictures/sec. and the red camera will take 60 pictures/sec. at times.
i just wonder how far or how close do we stand from what could be the "hell" of a workflow.
so exciting
emmanuel
 
We'll leave the software to the "trained professionals". We have are hands full just moving info around inside our "box". As far as workflow is concerned, CPUs keep getting faster, storage larger and cheaper and codecs better. We aren't designing and building a camera for what is working today, we are building one for what will be tomorrow.
 
Cameras cannot and do not successfully exist in isolation from support technologies and services. Developing an efficient workflow model AND ensuring that all of the necessary technologies, systems, software and services exist and function in a demanding, real-world environment is absolutely crucial to the wide adoption of a camera system. There are many historical examples of this in both the film and video worlds.

I contend that the acceptance of the GVG Viper, for example, would have been more immediate and widespread if the necessary workflow infrastructure had been more developed at the time of its introduction. But what actually happened is that users had to "invent" a workflow and try to assemble the various missing pieces of technology necessary to effectively make us of the camera technology. For example, the absence of an efficient recording technology was a problem from the beginning, and GVG has not yet shipped their on-board flashmag recorder announced early in 2005. IMO, GVG deferred the matter of recording technologies to third parties and the Viper has languished very badly because of that decision. For a long time, there was nowhere to go to obtain everything required to efficiently shoot and post-produce Viper footage. And that is STILL a problem. Drawing a production and post-production flow chart in a brochure and hoping that third party manufacturers and service providers will fill in the missing pieces is worlds away from an actual functioning workflow infrastructure. What makes this particularly difficult to understand is that GVG and Technicolor are sister companies. It's only recently, some 4 (or is it 5?) years after its introduction, that the Viper is gaining traction and finding a meaningful place in the industry. But one might argue that the 3-CCD Viper is an aging technology. Slow acceptance combined with a relatively short product life makes for terrible ROI.

It appears that the RED team understands the importance of a comprehensive system of core camera systems, sub-systems and accessories. But I respectfully submit that deferring ANY related workflow consideration to third parties is to flirt with disaster. Those "trained professionals" need to be RED's close collaborators NOW because successful conception, design and integration of any technology is a painstaking process. It is increasingly necessary for camera makers to be deeply involved in the development of workflow solutions or they (1) won't happen, (2) won't happen fast enough, or (3) may not be equal to the capabilities of your camera technology. The strength of a great imaging technology can easily be negated by many other practical considerations. Hazy workflow is particularly deadly. Producers don't like uncertainty -- they flee from it.

I strongly urge the Redsters to take as much interest in how footage from the RED will be handled throughout the entire workflow as they do in developing a beautiful camera technology. Assemble a strong workflow team to collaborate with your camera development team. You may decide that it's desirable or even necessary to develop some key post-production technologies in-house, or you may find some willing technology partners to fill the gaps. I would venture to say that these explorations will likely result in valuable design changes to the camera itself. For every dollar you spend solving workflow issues before you launch the camera product, you'll get multiple dollars back in sales because you'll have a happy, efficient, productive, successful RED camera user base. You'll never, ever regret that move. Don't wait until your camera product is finished. By then it's too late. The ultimate success of your camera product may depend on it.

My additions to the feature set wish list: Make the RED camera so tough that you can drive a truck over it. Banish the word "magnesium" from your lexicon (if it's even there) and use your titanium capabilities. But don't make it TOO lightweight. Gravity is a friend of both handheld operation and rock-soiid tripod operation. Compact is good, but too small is a detriment for professional use. Hands aren't getting any smaller, nor is eyesight improving. The controls should be made for operation by full-sized humans functioning in difficult conditions, not for engineers in the R&D lab.

My last bit of unsolicited advice: Please take the time to get it right. If at NAB 2007 you're showing several different working prototypes -- including one that maybe looks a bit odd but balances on the shoulder hands-free -- I'll regard that to be serious progress. As for the poll regarding the selling price, all I can say is that if RED can manufacture a reliable, pro-quality S35mm sensor camera with the feature set listed on the RED.com site, amortize R&D, and sell it at a profit for less than $50k (without lenses), Mr. Jannard is a genius. None of us are privy to RED's business model, but that may be as interesting as the technology.

No guts, no glory. Go for it!

Sincere best wishes to RED for every success,

Greg Lowry
 
Jim you make my heart skip a beat with what you've got going!!!
Waiting in the wings. The best of luck!
 
Greg, my mis-statement. Sorry. When I said "leave it to the trained professionals" I didn't mean put our head in the sand and hope it all works out, I meant that we will not be code writers, but rather collaborators.
 
Jannard said:
We aren't designing and building a camera for what is working today, we are building one for what will be tomorrow.
Click to expand...

A thoroughly refreshing and progressive breath of fresh air in a media equipment industry obsessed with protecting their upper end equipment offerings - encouraged by studios, networks, stations, and producers fixated on maximizing their legacy investments.

The potential end result of this?

Disruptive technology = quantum progression = creative latitude = enabled production = industry democratization = fiscal diversity = new paradigm

The sooner, the better...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
What exactly is wrong with attempting to maximize the return on one's investment? Don't we all do that? That's good business. There is no international conspiracy to repress "industry democratization". No electronics cartel trying to exclude the little guy from gaining a foothold by keeping equipment costs out of reach. If you think so, you have no idea how much this stuff costs to develop and manufacture. There are gaps in the middle of the market that RED may be able to fill. But there are already lots of tools in lots of price ranges. It's unclear if any of the manufacturers are really making much money on their high-end offerings. Relative to ongoing development costs, margins are not huge -- contrary to popular opinion (speculation).

RED will potentially add an exciting new tool to the mix, but to paint it as a disruptive technology -- especially before the product is finished -- is just plain hype and is based more on the wild speculation about it's ultimate selling price than anything else. Not even it's makers know how much it'll cost to manufacture yet. Having been involved in camera R&D I know there's a mountain of reality to deal with between here and there.

I for one would feel more comfortable if those who post here who have any affiliation with RED would make that known so those posts have an appropriate context. That seems reasonable.

Best wishes to all for a Happy Holiday and a creatively fulfilling, prosperous New Year!

Greg Lowry
 
All the RED camera specs and team members will be properly presented at NAB 2006. Plenty of time to get comfortable before the camera ships. This is just "sneak preview" time. We are using the feedback from this and other boards to make sure we are listening to the customer. We have already added several features from posts on this board.

Some people are excited now at the prospects and some will wait to get excited when they actually see something. Some will buy the 1st cameras (we already have a list of people who want to place an order not knowing the price) and others will wait until the camera has proven itself in use by the early adopters. Our only job is to build a breakaway product that many have dreamed about. No utopia here. We just want to move the market more quickly than it appears other companies care to.

Jim
 
Greg,

I see that you’re new to DVX User (5 posts). We don’t know each other and you haven’t posted a bio profile. You posted a strong response to my last post, so let me respond to your response:

Greg Lowry said:
What exactly is wrong with attempting to maximize the return on one's investment? Don't we all do that? That's good business. There is no international conspiracy to repress "industry democratization". No electronics cartel trying to exclude the little guy from gaining a foothold by keeping equipment costs out of reach. If you think so, you have no idea how much this stuff costs to develop and manufacture. There are gaps in the middle of the market that RED may be able to fill. But there are already lots of tools in lots of price ranges. It's unclear if any of the manufacturers are really making much money on their high-end offerings. Relative to ongoing development costs, margins are not huge -- contrary to popular opinion (speculation).
Click to expand...

There’s nothing wrong with maximizing an investment, as long as you don’t pass what economists term “the point of diminishing returns”. Once the utility, appreciation, or ability to generate income of a given commodity has passed the point where it can effectively generate it’s maximum returns potential, it has passed the point of diminishing returns. If you want to do what you term “good business”, there must be a decision point where you turn over your equipment for newer or more capable technology. A lot of legacy equipment is past the point of diminishing returns, and at some point the owners need to change over to newer equipment. I didn’t mention a “cartel”, and yes, after three decades in national television production, I have a good handle on the costs of R&D, and how the large equipment manufacturers function. They don’t publish their margins, or margins per product, so anything anyone says is speculation, whether it is positive or negative speculation.

Greg Lowry said:
RED will potentially add an exciting new tool to the mix, but to paint it as a disruptive technology -- especially before the product is finished -- is just plain hype and is based more on the wild speculation about it's ultimate selling price than anything else. Not even it's makers know how much it'll cost to manufacture yet. Having been involved in camera R&D I know there's a mountain of reality to deal with between here and there.
Click to expand...

RED could be termed disruptive technology simply on the strength of the specs published on the RED web site – even though a price level for the cameras has not been confirmed. If the camera is completed with those specs, ships in a timely manner, and priced to sell, it could indeed be “disruptive” technology. You call that speculation, but your position that it won’t be disruptive is every bit as much speculation as my position is. I guess time will tell whose speculation is correct.

Greg Lowry said:
I for one would feel more comfortable if those who post here who have any affiliation with RED would make that known so those posts have an appropriate context. That seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
I for one would be more comfortable if every new person to join DVX User would post a bio sketch on their user profile so longtime users could know who the new members are affiliated with and what their background is. I did that when I first joined, and I always post my web address on each one of my posts so that members can go to my site to learn more about my professional background and me. I’ve got nothing to hide and I routinely post my info links. If you read through my bio info on my DVX user profile you’ll see that I own my own company, and that I’m a producer, packager, and syndicator of national television programs. I’m not an employee of Oakley, RED, or Jim Jannard, and never have been. I have known Jim Jannard for many years, and he has my utmost respect as a businessman. His track record speaks for itself. His business history, coupled with my career-long anticipation of new technology tools in the media production business, is the primary motivation for my enthusiasm for the RED camera.

Greg Lowry said:
Best wishes to all for a Happy Holiday and a creatively fulfilling, prosperous New Year!
Click to expand...

Welcome to DVX User Greg! The cool thing about this board is the diversity of opinions and backgrounds. It’s a level playing field. Best wishes to you for a great holiday period and definitely an unbelievable prosperous 2006!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Gibby,

I apologize if my post seemed antagonistic. That wasn't my intention. It was really a response to an accumulation of posts that I have read on a couple of boards which portray the mainstream equipment manufacturers as villains and RED as some sort of technological messiah. The world is infinitely more complex than that, isn't it? High end pro gear serves its market, and the lower end stuff does the same thing. No product is ever perfect.

As for the economics of the market, I have some knowledge of the profitability, or otherwise, of the HD divisions of the big guys. The point I wanted to make is that the capital investment in R&D is always a risk and not every product is a winner. The revenue from successful products needs to cover the failures or those with little or no profitability. When a product is successful, it's logical for the manufacturer to extract every dollar possible before replacing it. If they replace it too soon, they suffer the consequences. Likewise if they take too long to replace it. The market is the ultimate leveller.

It's not my place to tell others what to think. I did, however, hope to suggest that we can all be very enthusiastic about the prospects for RED without projecting too many fantasies onto a product that's still in development. Publishing a feature set is easy, building the product is hard. That's not a criticism of RED. I didn't say it wouldn't be a disruptive technology. I just prefer not think in those terms until I see the product and how it fits into the market at the time of introduction. The market is definitely a moving target, and the manufacturers aren't idle. I suspect that rather than being a disruptive technology, RED will find its own particular niche because the market is so diversified and becoming more so. No camera product can be all things to all users. Because I naturally root for all new enterprises, particuarly those that aspire to greatness, I do hope that RED finds a huge market for its product. Mr. Jannard has wisely not quoted a target price, but that vacuum of information leads to speculation. Some of it seems grounded in reality, some of it less so. Like everyone else, I bring my own knowledge, experience, biases and desires to my own speculation. But I assure you it's all well-intended.

I have seen your enthusiastic (dare i say effusive?) promotion of RED elsewhere, so I wondered if you have some relationship to the company as a consultant or advisor. Thanks for your explanation.

As for my own background, I postponed the completion of my profile because I'm in the midst of merging my company with another one, relocating it, building a new website, and a multitude of other things that accompany such a change, while at the same time developing new products and producing content. I thought I would wait a couple of weeks until the new website and email are up, but fair is fair: my "old" company is HD3D Moviemakers Ltd. The website is http://www.hd3dmovies.com. My email is gregorylowry@hd3dmovies.com. I'll complete my profile with the new corporate info in due course.

Best regards,
Greg
 
Greg Lowry said:
The revenue from successful products need to cover the failures or those with little or no profitability.
Click to expand...

Just ask Sony.

As for the red phenomenon I’m just glad there is another horse in the race. Especially one that’s willing to push the envelope. Digital photography has been at a 35mm format for some time, doesn’t seem like too huge a jump to get there with motion pictures. Thanks Red!

BTW my suggestions are in the data stream all the metadata should be part of the output. Including lens settings if possible.
Complete remote control from a laptop would be a nice feature
Finally it would be really nice to have a portable data storage that can go on the run with a steadicam and record uncompressed video.

Thanks Mr Jannard I’ll be looking forward to NAB
 
I am sure that I'm not alone in appreciation for a board with a lot of great contribution. Since we have not posted the price range of our camera, it seems fair that speculation would occur on both sides of enthusiasm. At least for now.

I only have one remaining request from the posters... please call me Jim.
 
Greg Lowry said:
What exactly is wrong with attempting to maximize the return on one's investment?
Click to expand...

From the content makers point of view (and from a very visual one), wrongness is that you don't get quality tools for your craft with decent prices like other crafts (like still photography) get.

Computers, still cameras, televisions, communications are getting better and more affordable all the time. Why wouldn't moving image cameras? After dv came one decade ago, very little has changed. Sony noticed that vx1000 ate a lot of higher priced cameras markets and since then every video camera maker has been stalling development to protect their high end models.
Video cameras with hd capability have been as expensive as film cameras so no development there either.

There has been quite nothing competitive in the price range of 5k to 50k and I wonder why...
Of course R&D is expensive and even more if there is not even idea to sell large quantities of those products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top