RED Roadmap

[Gabrobot]

I find it a bit comical the way red reacts. I remember the days when the Canon Hdslr came out and the subsequent interest it gathered in the film community. One month after that we had the complete reshuffling of the RED line etc. with big announcement for some product that are still not available now, three years later!!!! It was like today a road map and some of these announcement will never materialize like the S35 scarlet. So for a company showing a road-map and then saying that everything can change is a joke.

I think they were shocked last night when they heard about the price of the F65. I think nothing prepared them to that, they were sure contemplating at least a $ 150 000 camera. Something that would be unaffordable, more a rental camera ala... Sony Cinealta history. Now Sony is coming directly at them (and Alexa) and apart from frame rate, RED has lost all the bragging rights. Where they thought that they had the high end pro market on features even compared to the Alexa. They are now with a competitor that has everything bettering them even in their biggest claim which is resolution. When Sony goes along its marketing saying true 4k, for some it might seem something light, but it is aimed directly at RED. The rotary shutter is also a small print for some but a huge huge implication for Red. Most of the CGI heavy blockbuster will see in it a much better camera than any other CMOS rolling shutter Camera. A true 4.4.4 , 4k (After debayer), raw (not compressed), global shutter camera even at twice the price kitted out will be a big big threat to the upper end.

For me RED is its worst enemy. Technologically I am an admirer and they are the reason why the f65 is $ 65 000 and not $ 250 000. But their marketing and ego will be their lost. They went up and up the latter in a smaller and smaller niche market and thought that the big guys would stay put and watch them. If they would have kept their foot on the ground and not humiliate people (man up, etc...) they could have a much larger market that would have been much more stable for them in the long run. I always said a working 2.5 k bayer sensor S 35 camera for a $ 8000 to $ 10 000 would have been a big big hit. It would have enough differentiation because of the resolution and devised much more rapidly because it would be 1/4 the data than the Epic. It would not have any bragging of being the highest this and highest that, but it would have been.............. good enough, and for a large majority great camera. Now they are cornered by Sony, on the lower part with the F3 and the high end with the F65. Lots of Red potential money is going to go to Sony. More so that now with the F3 and the F65 nobody knows to what level Sony is prepared to go against its competitors.

Come on, let's be real here.

The F65 isn't going to deliver measured 444 color from an 8kx2k sensor. Theoretically we're looking at great horizontal resolution and kinda meh vertical resolution. I'm not aware of any camera that has demonstrated this is an effective sensor design...Sony has a history of making weird sensors that worked okay, but not better than more straight forward designs (i.e. the F35's striped pattern sensor which caused chromatic aberrations). And uncompressed data's easy...and cumbersome. No one actually wants uncompressed if they can get that quality in a much smaller file.

Now assuming that the F65 really does have fantastic dynamic range, that basically puts it as a late-on-the-scene high-res Alexa...price-wise it's about the same. Trouble is, the main thing killing the Alexa right now compared to the Epic is its size, not its specs. With so many big budget movies shooting 3d, the vast majority see the size/quality of the Epics as a complete no-brainer. The F65 changes nothing. There's a reason Arri's scrambling to provide small Alexa camera heads, but even those fall behind Epic since they aren't self contained and require bulky equipment somewhere else on the rig.

I'm all for Arri and Sony upping their game, but we have yet to see anything that really goes toe to toe with what Red's accomplished. You may find the way they act a joke, but the fact is they're delivering Epic-Ms and Epic-Xs and those cameras are shooting most of the big feature digital productions right now.

 

[cowpunk52]

+100 2/3rds feels great. And it's way more 'blur in the background' than i need. I haven't been buying cameras, been renting, but if I ever buy one for me, it'll be a 16mm sized chip.

Agreed on all fronts! I for one really look forward to the day someone does release an affordable high-quality 16mm sensor camera - I'll take it over S35 any day!

 

[Michael Olsen]

I'd also be curious...especially now that EPICs are out with their relatively low compression ratios - who in their right mind would want uncompressed RAW over compressed RAW - even mathematically lossless? Two to two-and-a-half times less data for the exact same information? Yes please. I mean, we are talking about 17GB/min.

I actually have yet to see a screenshot with something like 5:1 or 3:1 REDCODE or another compressed RAW codec and then 'True' RAW where it was even close to obvious that 'True' RAW was the way to go. I suppose there must be circumstances in which it exists, but I've just never heard about it.

 

[Razz16mm]

Sony is still just a big money grubbing corporate conglomerate. Red is a small single purpose company owned and run by serious camera and film buffs. They have pushed the envelope of what is possible hard enough to change the direction of an entire industry in just 5 short years starting with nothing but an unproven concept and not being willing to settle for just "good enough".
Serious competition driven by a small passionate, innovative, involved group of entrepreneurs can only be good for all of us as customers.
Forcing the big guys to get off their duffs and actually make some new and interesting products is one of the side benefits. But they are still behind and playing catch up.

 

[Razz16mm]

Come on, let's be real here.

The F65 isn't going to deliver measured 444 color from an 8kx2k sensor. Theoretically we're looking at great horizontal resolution and kinda meh vertical resolution. I'm not aware of any camera that has demonstrated this is an effective sensor design...Sony has a history of making weird sensors that worked okay, but not better than more straight forward designs (i.e. the F35's striped pattern sensor which caused chromatic aberrations). And uncompressed data's easy...and cumbersome. No one actually wants uncompressed if they can get that quality in a much smaller file.

Now assuming that the F65 really does have fantastic dynamic range, that basically puts it as a late-on-the-scene high-res Alexa...price-wise it's about the same. Trouble is, the main thing killing the Alexa right now compared to the Epic is its size, not its specs. With so many big budget movies shooting 3d, the vast majority see the size/quality of the Epics as a complete no-brainer. The F65 changes nothing. There's a reason Arri's scrambling to provide small Alexa camera heads, but even those fall behind Epic since they aren't self contained and require bulky equipment somewhere else on the rig.

I'm all for Arri and Sony upping their game, but we have yet to see anything that really goes toe to toe with what Red's accomplished. You may find the way they act a joke, but the fact is they're delivering Epic-Ms and Epic-Xs and those cameras are shooting most of the big feature digital productions right now.

Sony's new sensor is just a Bayer sensor turned 45 degrees. You have to deal with exactly the same interpolation and color sampling issues however it is oriented. They just doubled the resolution using smaller pixels. More samples to work with.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Agreed, Razz (boy...non-real name forums seem silly sometimes). Competition is a really good thing, and it looks like we are about to get plenty of it. I'm betting that Arri has a 4K camera at least announced by the end of the year.The biggest benefit so far, I think, is Sonys commitment to 4k from acquisition to distribution. Big plus, there. And the technological advances - the rotating shutter in the camera, for instance. Good move on Sony. I have yet to see what it looks like, but it's probably pretty excellent. RAW as standard, as well...getting rid of the limits of all the video codecs. I cant help but think that any of these advancements are eventually going to trifle down into the less expensive cameras and make a lot of people here happy.

 

[eddavid]

I'm getting so tired of this whole resolution war Red is waging. At the end of the day, you're sitting so far away from the movie theatre screen or your tv screen, does anything over 2k (or 1080p) really matter that much? I know it's all an old argument but the more I am in this field, the more I care about color information and latitude and sensitivity and if the motion feels like film as useful tools for my job, as well as the most important thing - knowing that I can quickly get back up parts and good customer service, and a reliable feeling that the camera will not fail in the field. Sure 4k or 6k of resolution is nice if you need to digitally zoom in, but for most projects, I don't really need this. Extra frame rates sounds good as well. But this Sony F65 sounds pretty amazing. Yes it would be nice if it's a smaller camera but sometimes smaller is not better - it's doesn't feel as solid for handheld work - and the majority of 35mm film cameras are big. I'm super happy for the Red team for creating competition and driving the price down across the board, but the amount of misinformation and "Apple-like" devotion they have to Red can be offputting. I have no loyalty to brands - I pick the best camera for the best job just as I pick the best peanut butter for my sandwiches.

 

[Michael Olsen]

At the end of the day, you're sitting so far away from the movie theatre screen or your tv screen, does anything over 2k (or 1080p) really matter that much?

Yes. Films have been increasingly scanned in 4K, productions are choosing to shoot in 4K, theaters are converting to 4K, and now more digital cinema cameras are capable of acquiring 4K. 4K over 2K gives a demonstably better experience. And I'm not saying this because I'm a fan of what RED has done with their cameras. I'm saying this because I like watching movies. And 4K has me way more excited than 3D.

 

[eddavid]

Does 4k really give a more enjoyable experience over 2k? Do people complain about Imax projections even thought it's not really 4k? (http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels)

Yes we can all read the facts (especially from the Sony Whitepaper that it increases the experience for movie goers) but have you ever heard anyone complain that a film projection is too low resolution or that avatar projected in 2k was too low of resolution, especially films that went to a 2K DI which is still the majority of them. Maybe technical film people like us - but the ordinary public - the people that matter - have they ever complained? I still don't 100% buy the whole argument for 4k resolution. Sure it sounds great, but hopefully without compromising more uncompressed color information per frame. And I also really believe in James Cameron idea that increasing the frame rate to 60fps as the standard for film projection would look sharper and better than actually increasing the resolution. The whole old perceived sharpness argument.

On an unrelated note, I also read an article years ago about how you would only notice the difference between 1080p and 720p on a tv screen less than 42 inches or so and if you are sitting less than 5 feet from a television which almost no one does. That was in Fortune magazine back in 2003. If you can't notice the difference of that, what can we expect from Joe Q Public who thinks Imax is large and amazing and really good enough?

 

[Razz16mm]

4k or higher acquisition is not about the final display format. It is about matching or beating film as an acquisition medium. Even if you finish HD or 2k, higher resolution originals produce much higher MTF for fine detail at the lower display resolution. I have seen 55" 4k LCD displays showing 4k imagery from 10' or more away at a trade show and the difference is blatantly obvious even though I am not really seeing finer details, just better modulated richer images that have a very different quality to them. Compare the video quality of an SD image shot with a 480p camera vs one shot and scaled down from an HD camera and you will easily see what I'm talking about. Do you think any still photographer would ever be satisfied with a 2k digital camera to replace an FF35 film camera? Why should a cinematographer settle for 2k?

 

[Gabrobot]

Do people complain about Imax projections even thought it's not really 4k?

Yes actually...Avatar looked terrible in digital Imax...it looked like the whole film was out of focus. I grew up with real Imax, don't tell me there's no difference. There's still no digital camera and projection system that can beat shooting on and projecting Imax film processed chemically.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Yep. I think I should make it clear that I don't think 4K will just all of the sudden be everywhere - 4k cinema, 4k projectors, 4k TVs, 4k tablets, 4k phones, and so on. Rather, it will just become one of the choices. I think instead of 720p and 1080p we'll have 720p or 2k or 1080p or 4k. Each will be used appropriately - 4k for theatrical presentation and higher end home cinema, 2k for home cinema and tv, 1080p for tv and tablets, and 720p for phones and smaller display devices.This is a classic case of "You don't know what you're missing until you've seen it". I recall, not too long ago, people saying that HD was just a marketing ploy - a way for manufacturers to make everyone buy new TVs. It wasn't until people started to see it that they could appreciate the difference. And for certain instances, there is a big difference. ESPN, for instance, has apparently decided to invest SIGNIFICANT resources in preparation for 4k broadcast in 2013. Theaters are spending tens of thousands of dollars they needn't spend on 4k projectors. Sony has probably spent millions in R&D for their through-and-through 4k systems. Those aren't the kind of decisions companies make just because it sounds better. It actually really can make a difference.Additionally, 4k digital acquisition apparently makes VFX artists so happy they could cry when they are uses to dealing with HD material....

 

[SPZ]

Does 4k really give a more enjoyable experience over 2k? Do people complain about Imax projections even thought it's not really 4k? (http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels)

Yes we can all read the facts (especially from the Sony Whitepaper that it increases the experience for movie goers) but have you ever heard anyone complain that a film projection is too low resolution or that avatar projected in 2k was too low of resolution, especially films that went to a 2K DI which is still the majority of them. Maybe technical film people like us - but the ordinary public - the people that matter - have they ever complained? I still don't 100% buy the whole argument for 4k resolution. Sure it sounds great, but hopefully without compromising more uncompressed color information per frame. And I also really believe in James Cameron idea that increasing the frame rate to 60fps as the standard for film projection would look sharper and better than actually increasing the resolution. The whole old perceived sharpness argument.

On an unrelated note, I also read an article years ago about how you would only notice the difference between 1080p and 720p on a tv screen less than 42 inches or so and if you are sitting less than 5 feet from a television which almost no one does. That was in Fortune magazine back in 2003. If you can't notice the difference of that, what can we expect from Joe Q Public who thinks Imax is large and amazing and really good enough?

4K is also excellent for 1080p Post production. With a frame size 3x bigger, you can actually crop and reframe to your heart's content if you're working for 1080p. That's another serious plus right there.

 

[J Bellari]

2 products I find interesting on the Red Roadmap are the 645 and 617 format coming next year,
at 8K resolution and above...

I think Red's 4-5K resolution alone is not enough resolution long-term for the DSMC concept,
as Red will begin promoting 8K+ resolution in mid-late 2012.

Sony is already touting 8K in their new F65 sensor right now, though the true output resolution is 4K.
Heck, even JVC will have their consumer 4K camcorder at NAB 2012 for sale.

8K+ Red products would seemingly comply with the future 8K NHK broadcast standard, a taste of which
will be seen live broadcast at the 2012 London Olympics.

8K cinematography allows for true replacement of the Still Camera, while 4K is interesting
but doesn't quite get you there.

Also, there is no 4K broadcast standard, and 4K source material will not look that much better
on a 1080p HDTV at standard viewing distances, slowing the adoption in consumer use.

DVD's gave new life to old TV's in an instant, clearly visible and superior over analog broadcast and VHS.
This improvement in SOURCE material image quality actually SLOWED the replacement of analog sets...

Since 4K doesn't do that, people will not rush out to buy 4K TV's, especially in this battered US economy...

I'll be happy to let the pros and enthusiasts fund the first wave of 4K cameras, LCD's, projectors and 3D monitors,
while taking advantage of the 50% off sale the following years.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I recently saw the 4k demo at RED studios and was floored. The first time I actually saw true 4k projections. Yeah, all my theaters have had Sony 4k projectors for almost two years now, but I doubt any of them ever had "true" 4k contend being pumped out of them. The 4k I saw over at RED looked more "3D" than any "actual 3D" I've ever seen. It was slo clear I felt like I was right there. The future is not 3D, the future is 4k and up! 3D is a cumbersome gimmick that needs to die again real soon.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

2 products I find interesting on the Red Roadmap are the 645 and 617 format coming next year,
at 8K resolution and above...

I think Red's 4-5K resolution alone is not enough resolution long-term for the DSMC concept,
as Red will begin promoting 8K+ resolution in mid-late 2012.

Sony is already touting 8K in their new F65 sensor right now, though the true output resolution is 4K.
Heck, even JVC will have their consumer 4K camcorder at NAB 2012 for sale.

8K+ Red products would seemingly comply with the future 8K NHK broadcast standard, a taste of which
will be seen live broadcast at the 2012 London Olympics.

8K cinematography allows for true replacement of the Still Camera, while 4K is interesting
but doesn't quite get you there.

Also, there is no 4K broadcast standard, and 4K source material will not look that much better
on a 1080p HDTV at standard viewing distances, slowing the adoption in consumer use.

DVD's gave new life to old TV's in an instant, clearly visible and superior over analog broadcast and VHS.
This improvement in SOURCE material image quality actually SLOWED the replacement of analog sets...

Since 4K doesn't do that, people will not rush out to buy 4K TV's, especially in this battered US economy...

I'll be happy to let the pros and enthusiasts fund the first wave of 4K cameras, LCD's, projectors and 3D monitors,
while taking advantage of the 50% off sale the following years.

I like S35mm sized sensors. Pack all the pixels you want in that area, but I'm not going to have open arms for changing industry standard to FF-sized cinema cameras. CP.2's aren't that great, screw photography glass, and I'm going to have to shoot at a T/5.6 to get any decent depth of field back. Sounds like fun. Blah. I don't want to be stuck in the 'old ways' but I think T/1.4 at most times on S35mm format is borderline too shallow. I like T/2 or T/2.8 as my shooting stop. It isn't as contrasty as deep stops, it's sharp yet smooth. Some professionals like T/4 when they can. To get that equivalent Depth of Field on FF sensors, (if using the same composition) we'll have to close the aperture down further, since we'll be using longer lenses.

With that said, I would not mind the FF 8k+ sensor for the right type of film. Like how some shoot on 65mm. If the film called for it, I could surely see myself doing something with Full Frame. But right now, I don't see any optical support, and I'm not lighting with 18k's yet. So it's either hello shallow city or I'm sticking with these beautiful cameras we have now. I'm thinking 5k Epic, 4k F65, 2k Alexa, will be ok for a couple years to come. 4k might be the norm, but I think the display industry will set our pace. Next stop 4k and then we'll move on. We won't skip 4k.

 

[eddavid]

I'm all up for a 4k camera if it has no compromises on the color information and latitude so it can get to 4k. The Red One made several compromises with its Imager. Also remember megapixels aren't the end all be all - it's the amount of colorsites on an imager. I can shoot on the dvx100 and blow it up to 4k and call that 4k too. I haven't seen a 4k projection. But I've seen plenty of Imax projections which aren't 4K and that's damn good enough for me. If the film industry feels they need to go bigger, let them go bigger. Until it's the standard for film festivals that require a copy at 4k, I'll continue to shoot with the best camera at the best price that can give me the best latitude and color information and a sharpness that is acceptable.

I have seen Red one footage in the theatres - I just saw the Future by Miranda July. The wide shots didn't look good - they felt too sharp. Is it Red One's fault - maybe it's the film's DI and grading. I also have sen Che at the theatre and that looked horrible. And I've seen Borat and Food Inc in the cinema - shot at 720p - and to me that looked completely fine. So there's more to resolution that makes a film look good. Sure I'll take 4k anyday - reframing is very nice, and its nice to get up to 120fps, but not with sacrificing color information and latitude.

Also the comment about shooting hd and then downconverting to sd to make it look sharper than acquiring at sd - this isn't true to me. I've seen footage shot on the SDX900 that looks as sharp and good as footage shot on the HDX900 downconverted. I'm no engineer and maybe you guys can help on this - but don't you just lose the increased resolution anyway when you shrink an image down in that your eyes can't resolve the detail unless you are like super close to your tv?

 

[kittykatro]

What happened with the Epic full frame?
And the 35mm Scarlet?
And when will the regular Scarlet be launched?
Anyone else tired of these announcements?

 

[Razz16mm]

Yes actually...Avatar looked terrible in digital Imax...it looked like the whole film was out of focus. I grew up with real Imax, don't tell me there's no difference. There's still no digital camera and projection system that can beat shooting on and projecting Imax film processed chemically.

Avatar was shot on 2/3" 1080p cameras.

 

[Centro]

They should just rename it Scarlet S16. It just sounds better

I think 4k is great for acquisition, delivery doesn't matter much to me, 2k or whatever is fine. To me the goal is a camera that will make me think I'm watching the same ol' 35mm I've always watched and loved.

But Price and form factor are still a plus for Red over Sony at this point IMO. Looking to see the some F65 footage though.