The Emperor's Memory Cards Are Wearing No Clothes !!!
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
The lenses are a poor man's Zenitar and, inside it, there are two or three Fuji Instax Mini's.
I thought Red rehoused a lot of Sigma lenses, has that changed? Either way, I'd have more respect for the lenses if they just left the original manufacturer name on them, let's not pretend that are anything but what they are.
On the storage front, they could have built two versions of the drive bay attachment. One version that took the "large" 2.5 inch drive enclosure, and another that took the mini-mag for when size really was a factor. In the large version I would go with a RAID 1 mirror onto two M2 drives. This would give a little protection from failure where you could probably keep shooting through an error, and still get the shot. Then switch to another drive for work later. The technology for this exists, we've had USB connected RAID 0 or RAID 1 enclosures for years, just need to scale it down to M2 drives. If Jinnimags hasn't thought of this yet, I bet they come out with a mirrored system in the very near future. Might even be able to fit this into a mini-mag format if you use real custom made drives.
[edit] I guess Lenovo is already thinking about this, check this out https://lenovopress.com/lp0769-thinksystem-m2-drives-adapters
Last edited:
They've rehoused both Sigma and Tamron lenses, denying such the whole way. Amazing the number of people who would argue for them on this point, when it was blatantly obvious when you had the lenses side-by-side. I have always preferred the original versions of these lenses - my Tamron 17-50 non-VC, the lens that is inside the Red Pro Zoom, is still one of my favorite ef lenses in it's original form whereas the Red rehouse was at best a so-so lens. The Red shells never added much other than weight - they were crappy rehousings imho, with the older ones being even worse.
I made a lot of enemies in Redland when I shared my discoveries in this area a few years back. Lots of heated discussions back then with lemmings defending their purchases when I pointed out the source of the glass.
This kind of crap is nothing new for Red, but if they have people willing to pay then who I am to criticize - TETO.
Last edited:
Mitch Gross
Veteran
If memory serves, RED didn't actually deny this as much as they never acknowledged it. Big difference.
It was fun to repair a RED zoom by going to a photo store and picking up a new lens for $500 to get the replacement glass elements.
BTW, this was only true of the 18-50 and the 17-50. The 18-85 was an original design as were the primes. I know who was contracted to build these but that's not the point.
It was fun to repair a RED zoom by going to a photo store and picking up a new lens for $500 to get the replacement glass elements.
BTW, this was only true of the 18-50 and the 17-50. The 18-85 was an original design as were the primes. I know who was contracted to build these but that's not the point.
Last edited:
Has a JinniMag ever failed ?
Has anyone ever proved that RED mags are better than JinniMag mags ?
...I'm all for paying more for a product as long as I'm getting something for my money, even if it's just peace of mind.
For many people, it doesn't matter if they have never failed, the thought of using a cheap rip off product is enough to get you in trouble. But once that brand becomes a proven item, then things change. Think about batteries. For the longest time there was nothing but AB in the professional markets. Now look at all the different manufacturers out there that you might see. Personally I use IDX at work, why? Simply because they have worked faithfully for us for many years without a single issue. I used AB at the previous job and same can be said there. But the price difference between IDX V mount and any other decent brand is small enough that it isn't an issue for us to spend the extra money.
TheTrickster
Well-known member
I think, like many - irrelevant of cost, you would choose the official MiniMags for your critical media, it should pay for itself eventually.
However... i do think Red has been very very misleading on some of the points these videos have brought up. The biggest one for me, is the upgrade path from RedMags to MiniMags - that too me is the most shocking, especially as Jarred stated they were so different, completely incompatible etc - only to find its the same media inside, but different casings...
I'm shooting underwater, so I know small custom made pieces of equipment, in small quantities costs a lot to manufacture / buy - (my last monitor housing cost me $500 to just have a new hole drilled in it!!)
It probably similar with Red, you aren't just paying for the raw materials - its R&D, time etc etc. So RED can charge what they like for what they sell - no qualms with that , but it's the hoodwinking that stuff is 'special', is 'made in usa', is 'uniquely Red' that is so off in all this.
The 512 vs 480 thing is also a bit cheeky - but when has media ever been whats written on the outside.
I think the issues themselves in the grand scheme of things are pretty small - for me the lingering question is - if they are this deceptive on media - what else have they done?
However... i do think Red has been very very misleading on some of the points these videos have brought up. The biggest one for me, is the upgrade path from RedMags to MiniMags - that too me is the most shocking, especially as Jarred stated they were so different, completely incompatible etc - only to find its the same media inside, but different casings...
I'm shooting underwater, so I know small custom made pieces of equipment, in small quantities costs a lot to manufacture / buy - (my last monitor housing cost me $500 to just have a new hole drilled in it!!)
It probably similar with Red, you aren't just paying for the raw materials - its R&D, time etc etc. So RED can charge what they like for what they sell - no qualms with that , but it's the hoodwinking that stuff is 'special', is 'made in usa', is 'uniquely Red' that is so off in all this.
The 512 vs 480 thing is also a bit cheeky - but when has media ever been whats written on the outside.
I think the issues themselves in the grand scheme of things are pretty small - for me the lingering question is - if they are this deceptive on media - what else have they done?
filmguy123
Veteran
Per my understanding, when you sort through it all, it essentially boils down to this:
- RED uses OTS parts
- RED runs rigorous validation testing on these OTS parts to ensure each part actually sustains the listed speeds and is reliable under load. There is value in this, as all samples have variation and duds.
- Knock offs uses the same OTS parts, skipping the validation testing. The statistical probability of one of the OTS parts not living up to its advertised speeds is small. For the most part, you can also self-test this with the right software tools and the right knowledge (you are looking to validate the sustained speed, not the max speeds).
RED dresses that up in a little bit more, such as RED's custom algorithm that requires specific XYZ... this is a deceiving half-truth. RED has a unique, special algorithm. But that does not require custom storage hardware. That's not how data read/write works. The algorithm processing takes place in RED's cpu, not in the SSD. It does, however, require a certain read/write sustained speed which requires certain storage hardware - that is, hardware that can sustain these speeds, not just as advertised, but as tested.
I'm not much of a RED apologist but I also think there is quite a bit of value to this testing and validation. Manufacturers frequent bin parts by performance and reliability so it makes sense that RED would test parts further to ensure they meet their requirements.
filmguy123
Veteran
Agreed, and context is everything. If you're a large studio in hollywood working with large budgets, with very expensive talent and very expensive shots, it borders on foolish to not have the absolute highest level of validation on all storage parts.
If you are a freelancer or contractor, clearly your data and clients are still of the utmost importance, but most of us making a living on non-3rd party validated memory and have never had an issue. Most manufacturers also have QC on their parts, and most processes today are very reliable. And finally, if one desires, it is not terribly difficult to validate this one's self with very similar tools (this is more practical for smaller entities rather than large hollywood entities or agencies). But it is also a personal choice.
The conundrum for RED, IMO, is what happens if you advertise this frankly. I would like to see transparency here as I have no doubt some would purchase simply for the security. But then you'd have articles and stats posted on failure rates, and all kinds of talk on the excessive validation mark up and how it's "not worth it". And then perhaps RED can't afford a validation team at all, or they can, but it's a zero profit game. Who knows, right? But then there's the rub - inevitably someone might have a media failure on a more competitively priced RED sold media card that wasn't thoroughly validated. And this tarnishes the RED brand. How can we trust RED for our mission critical shots when this happens? So now, perhaps RED doesn't want to sell first hand media at all, and just lists approved vendors. But now customers have no option for a validated media option with the RED stamp of approval.
I'm just playing out the possible behind-closed-doors reasoning on RED's media. Look, they are a very high end brand. They are selling to big time clients. No doubt they are making some hefty profits on their media, even after validation. I'm just speculating that there may be a cascading impact and more complicated considerations for why they may do the things they do. If you want to offer extremely high-end clients a media option, storing what could be a very expensive shot where Tom Cruise leaps from an exploding helicopter that you can't retake, you do not want to sell them shoddy media. And you don't want to offer them no option for a validated media.
I don't love the sort of obfuscating tech jargon that makes the media modules sound like something they aren't - and that's what it is, there is a reason they aren't that hard to reverse engineer - but it's possible there may be at least some level of a catch-22 here.
I would like to know more about this, because the 3rd party company might be doing similar tests, and it's also possible that they might use the higher grade industrial version of the memory card. In some cases the cost difference between the consumer and industrial grade components is pretty small.
The 3rd party guy makes a point of mentioning that the minimags are just base model SSDs. Sure they may have passed through a validation process, but in all situations it seems they have chosen not to order the industrial or higher tolerance component, which is a bit weird.
What validation are you guys talking about? Each chip, before it is even turned into a plastic encased finished product, has to pass tests that make sure it conforms to the data sheet specifications. If it doesn't, it gets thrown away and never gets encased in plastic and leads added. If you design your camera to those specifications, it will work. If you don't, it won't. There are no further validation tests to be done. Sure, you might have a QC department that ensures that the chips are meeting spec, but no one in their right mind is going to test all chips against spec. It's a complete waste of time because it has already been done.
The only additional work a camera manufacturer can do that is of value is to burn in the parts to eliminate early-death parts, which for certain very high reliability systems, is of value. I haven't read where RED does a burn-in.
The only additional work a camera manufacturer can do that is of value is to burn in the parts to eliminate early-death parts, which for certain very high reliability systems, is of value. I haven't read where RED does a burn-in.
It's not weird. RED's operating temperature specification is 0 - 40C which is the same as commercial grade chips.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
This really isn't true. I won't go into all of the details, but suffice to say that at Convergent Design we had to do a lot of tolerance testing on media. It's simply a lot more complicated than that.
Now you have me curious Mitch. I though I was well versed on this sort of thing. I'd like to know more. We'll have to have coffee sometime. There's always something to learn. While I've not done camera design, I've been there and done that for very high reliability electronics.
Maybe Mitch can't talk about it. But I'd like to hear specifics of this validation everyone is talking about.
Maybe Mitch can't talk about it. But I'd like to hear specifics of this validation everyone is talking about.
Last edited:
Mitch,
If you are at liberty to explain the testing, I think a lot of us would like to read it. But I also understand that some of that testing may be a "trade secret" and you are not able to talk about it. Might help us understand what RED is (in theory) doing to justify the mark up. But then again, look at Black Magic and the testing they do on media, and then they give you a standardized connector to just plug approved media into to get approved performance. And then look at the newer SD card rating, like the V series where the manufacturer does all the rating and testing.
If you are at liberty to explain the testing, I think a lot of us would like to read it. But I also understand that some of that testing may be a "trade secret" and you are not able to talk about it. Might help us understand what RED is (in theory) doing to justify the mark up. But then again, look at Black Magic and the testing they do on media, and then they give you a standardized connector to just plug approved media into to get approved performance. And then look at the newer SD card rating, like the V series where the manufacturer does all the rating and testing.
I think what Mitch is getting at is that SSDs have to be managed carefully in order for them to remain in peak writing condition. One problem is that the NAND gates wear out. They only last for so many cycles. So they have to manage 'wear leveling' so that the wear on each cell is as even as possible and the whole drive doesn't wear out too quickly.
Another issue is that performance of the drive can degrade as it fills up and gets fragmented. So write speeds can go down if this is not managed well. To me, that's all part of proper design. Perhaps that is the algorithms RED speaks of.
None of that has anything to do with Jinni vs RED as far as I can tell. They both buy the same chips (SSD card) and put them in a similar package. The RED camera firmware is going to do the same thing with both cards because they have the same chips in them (allegedly).
[edit] The latest video says that RED does not allow single clips to be deleted. A Mag can only be re-formated to erase it. If that's true, that lends credence to the idea that they really want top performance and don't want to risk degradation of the write speed through fragmentation.
Another issue is that performance of the drive can degrade as it fills up and gets fragmented. So write speeds can go down if this is not managed well. To me, that's all part of proper design. Perhaps that is the algorithms RED speaks of.
None of that has anything to do with Jinni vs RED as far as I can tell. They both buy the same chips (SSD card) and put them in a similar package. The RED camera firmware is going to do the same thing with both cards because they have the same chips in them (allegedly).
[edit] The latest video says that RED does not allow single clips to be deleted. A Mag can only be re-formated to erase it. If that's true, that lends credence to the idea that they really want top performance and don't want to risk degradation of the write speed through fragmentation.
Last edited: