RED concerns

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.
 
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
 
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.)
 
Policar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.)
Click to expand...

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!)
 
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])?
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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
 
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.
 
CamDiver said:
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.
Click to expand...

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