RED CAMERA Prelim. Specs

Let´s say RED cam has a portatable storage system, you go to the field and shot your talent, of load files to raid or firewire external and make proxy copies of all files, lets say, in HD resolution [720p fror exp. - will be enjoyable on almost any lsd], then do your ofline cut, then go online, make final color timing, finally render and bring all to lab to print it to film. Then you will enjoy the full 4k resolution.

OH yes, forgot to add 4k projector option...
 
Using SLR lenses means that there must be a way of adjusting the aperture via the "camera" module or an adapter, as modern SLR lenses have no f-stop ring on them. And they have no servo zooms. Using them on a great hi-rez sensor module to make movies is like using bicycle wheels on a BMW.

(terveisiä Espoosta...)
 
Film transfer... yes. Actually the film prints shown on cinemas have less resolution than HDTV (normal second generation film prints from original film negs shown on a good projector is only about 1600*800 pixels)... The only way to enjoy the full rez of 4k digital seems to be 4k projectors, which are few and far between. Maybe in 2 or 3 cinemas at the moment. In the world.

But times change. I begin to understand that this might be reality in 4-6 years time. Maybe.

Great project, this RED.

But I do not need one.
 
I think you folks are speculating something that will never exist, the best HD cam ever built affordable for the typical dvx user. That is not going to happen, this camera will certainly cost a lot more than any HDV. JVC will lunch their new HDV, the GY-HD7000 priced at $27,950 less lens. How can such a superior camera be cheaper then that? No way.
 
athouguia said:
I think you folks are speculating something that will never exist, the best HD cam ever built affordable for the typical dvx user. That is not going to happen, this camera will certainly cost a lot more than any HDV. JVC will lunch their new HDV, the GY-HD7000 priced at $27,950 less lens. How can such a superior camera be cheaper then that? No way.
Click to expand...

Boy I love it when people make predictions like this.

You, nor I know WHAT price point this camera will be.


Crass generalizations like that are pretty useless.
 
athouguia said:
I think you folks are speculating something that will never exist, the best HD cam ever built affordable for the typical dvx user. That is not going to happen, this camera will certainly cost a lot more than any HDV. JVC will lunch their new HDV, the GY-HD7000 priced at $27,950 less lens. How can such a superior camera be cheaper then that? No way.
Click to expand...

It can be. The high prices comes from R&D, as stated elsewhere. That's not an on-going expense. If one chooses, one can just eat the R&D costs and sell the product for whatever they want. I do it all the time...but that's because, for me, the R&D is the fun part, and I'd feel guilty for being paid to have fun. :-)

I don't expect anyone else to do likewise, but saying the cam can't be cheaper than...whatever...is just wrong.
 
jrv3034 said:
I think what'll make this a winner will be an extremely lowball price. Say $15,000 or so.
Click to expand...
It seems that the major costs will be the CMOS chip, the lenses, and the storage. Right now, a UHD imager capable of 60p at full res probably costs several grand alone. And lenses can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The storage capacities necessary to hold 4:4:4 UHD data will be fairly expensive.

But imager breakthroughs -- permiiting higher definitions at lower costs -- happen regularly, and I'm sure that's one of Jim Jannard's main concerns right now. As to lenses, I suspect that even though his company intends to design and produce a matched set of lenses for the camera, lens prices won't be coming down much. By making Red compatible with existing S35 lenses, he is effectively externalizing the cost of lenses, which is a brilliant move. And as to storage, because Red will be storage medium agnostic, any of a host of technologies -- current and forthcoming -- will be supported. The cost, again, will be external to that of the base camera. And, again, brilliant. This allows Jannard to concentrate on making the Red camera itself the most capable and cost-efficient system possible, while supporting essentially open technologies and promoting user choice.

I expect the core system (sans lens and storage) to be under $20,000.
 
Tzedekh said:
It seems that the major costs will be the CMOS chip, the lenses, and the storage. Right now, a UHD imager capable of 60p at full res probably costs several grand alone. And lenses can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The storage capacities necessary to hold 4:4:4 UHD data will be fairly expensive.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about externalizing the storage, but I think you should look at the Foveon chip. It has almost the same characteristics as Jim Jannard put up on his site and it is found in the Polaroid 530 camera, which lists at around $300. It becomes a matter of bus bandwidth. 4520*2540*10bits*3 is around 45 megabytes per frame. The Foveon chip uses a form of analog compression to cut that in half, but 25 megabites or 200 megabits per frame is a lot of data to move around. Look for wide buses to ship data around. Writing to flash would indeed take an array, because the only thing fast about flash is bulk erase. It is still EEPROM technology underneath the hood.

Thompson just released a camera with a pair of Analog Devices JPEG2000 chips. This is a full frame wavelet encoder. This camera will do HD, but not at Red resolution.

All that data moving around will require a lot of transistors. It think that heat in the camera will be a problem. Look for a camera with a heat sink on the outside.

I think that he will subcontract out the manufacture of a zoom lens and let people rent primes. A zoom lens will get people shooting and for productions, they will probably rent prime lenses. I'm hoping for a body, zoom lens and storage for shooting clips for under $10k. I think that the market will shrink if the entry cost is higher than $10k.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Boy I love it when people make predictions like this.

You, nor I know WHAT price point this camera will be.


Crass generalizations like that are pretty useless.
Click to expand...

You could share your opinion with us on your first post here instead of criticising others for their posts. Where is the constructive part on your statement? This is a very useless thread based only in predictions, but is always nice to read everyone's opinion about a product yet to be released. We know almost nothing about this camera, we can't do more then speculate.

I don't understand your criticism about my statement, of course I don't know what price range this cam will be in, but I know like everyone else in here that you have to pay for hi top quality products. There are no good cheap HD lens, no hi capacity cheap storage media and no big hi-res cheap sensors. This is a fact, not a prediction... just put all pieces togheter and try to make a camera with the same price point of a HVX200.

Maybe they can beat Sony's Cinealta offering a better and cheaper product, but I don't believe it'll be an affordable camera like a HDV. I'd love to be wrong, lets wait and see.
 
DanielG said:
I agree with you about externalizing the storage, but I think you should look at the Foveon chip. It has almost the same characteristics as Jim Jannard put up on his site and it is found in the Polaroid 530 camera, which lists at around $300.
Click to expand...
Foveon chips are as yet unsuitable for HD video cameras, let alone UHD cameras like Red.

There are two models of Foveon sensors, the X3 4.5MP (a.k.a. Foveon FO18-50-F19) and the X3 10.2MP (a.k.a. Foveon X3 Pro 10M and Foveon F7X3-C9110). The 4.5MP, has a 4:3 aspect ratio and, you guessed it, about 4.5 million effective pixels (1,420 x 1,060 x 3 layers [R, G, B]) over an effective area of 7.1 mm x 5.3 mm (effective diagonal, 8.8 mm). The chip can yield this resolution, which wouldn't be adequate for 1080i or 1080p (especially the full 1,920 x 1,080), even at 7 fps; at 30 fps, resolution drops to 640 x 480. Also, greater light sensitivity can be achieved, but only by ganging pixels together, effectively reducing resolution at a precipitous rate.

The 10.2MP has a 3:2 aspect ratio and about 10.2 million effective pixels (2,268 x 1,512 x 3 layers) over an effective area of 20.7 mm x 13.8 mm (effective diagonal, 25 mm). Although this resolution is more than adequate for 1080i or 1080p (but probably not for 2540p without a lot of spatial offset), it can be sustained at a maximum of only 4.4 fps; at 25 fps, resolution drops to 576 x 384, which, oddly, is a lower frame rate/resolution combination than that of the 4.5MP. As with the 4.5MP, increased light sensitivity is achieved at the cost of resolution.

When a Foveon chip can be run at 2540p60 and 3 lux or so, then it will be ready for Red.
 
Tzedekh said:
Foveon chips are as yet unsuitable for HD video cameras, let alone UHD cameras like Red.

When a Foveon chip can be run at 2540p60 and 3 lux or so, then it will be ready for Red.
Click to expand...

I thought I found a page on the Foveon web site that talked about chips that were very near in size and pixel count to the Red sensor, and now I can't find it back. I didn't do my home work about frame rates. The ability to clock data out of the chip is a function of many different things, often bus size and clock rate. I don't know what those are for that chip.

Doing a sensor is not child's play and I assumed that Red would would with a company that is already making sensors.

This is no easy task. 4500+ * 2500+ * 12 bits * 3 is a lot of data per frame.
 
Boomerang said:
I read if you pull the photos off the site it has an EXIF for a canon 1D.
Click to expand...

This has been brought up more than once.

Go back and look at the top of the page, it clearly says:
"Please note that the footage below was not shot with the Mysterium sensor"

And if you scroll to the bottom of the page it says:
"The above frames are to be judged for size comparison only"

So yes, the shot was taken with a Canon 1D, but it is being used to show you the relative sizes of 2540P, 1080P, 720P and 480P
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but someone lied to you.
It matters very much.
Click to expand...
They should make a pro cam that shoots in 320x240... it would be totally awesome for compositing. We wouldn't even have to worry about focusing, either... everything would look out of focus!

-pasty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top