The King Kong of Cameras at red.com

hmurchisonhmurchison
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://red.com/



Get a freakin' load on these specs.



s35mm Full Frame Sensor supporting 4520x2540



2540p at 60fps!!



RAW 4:2:2 or 4:4:4



PL 35mm lens support Ultra Definition Lens



Record to just about anything. HDD, Blu Ray, Flash



http://red.com/redcamera.html



Well I have no doubt this will cost as much as an Audi but if it's not vaporware then I'm extremely pleased because I'm sick of the current state of HD coming from Japanese companies. I want some genuine ingenuity.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    http://red.com/



    Get a freakin' load on these specs.



    s35mm Full Frame Sensor supporting 4520x2540



    2540p at 60fps!!



    RAW 4:2:2 or 4:4:4



    PL 35mm lens support Ultra Definition Lens



    Record to just about anything. HDD, Blu Ray, Flash



    http://red.com/redcamera.html



    Well I have no doubt this will cost as much as an Audi but if it's not vaporware then I'm extremely pleased because I'm sick of the current state of HD coming from Japanese companies. I want some genuine ingenuity.



    I would hold on to my wallet around these people--tightly.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    shawkshawk Posts: 116member
    I'm not sure if existing sensor technology is up to the specs.

    Resolution isn't the issue, the problems are frame rate and output bandwidth at high resolution.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shawk

    I'm not sure if existing sensor technology is up to the specs.

    Resolution isn't the issue, the problems are frame rate and output bandwidth at high resolution.



    yes the resolution is overkill extreme. You'd need 600MBs to capture 60p at that rez (10.9 MB a frame according to Mike Curtis from hdforindies.com)



    I think most people would be happy for excellent 1080p 4:4:4 performance.



    NAB 2006 should be intereting. Is this company for real or are they simply vapor?
  • Reply 4 of 46
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    yes the resolution is overkill extreme. You'd need 600MBs to capture 60p at that rez (10.9 MB a frame according to Mike Curtis from hdforindies.com)



    I think most people would be happy for excellent 1080p 4:4:4 performance.



    NAB 2006 should be intereting. Is this company for real or are they simply vapor?



    I can't possibly imagine having to push that many pixels around, even with a quad and dual-fiber. You'd need an ungodly number of XRAID's to do the online. All the RAW footage would have to be color corrected and down-rez'd before it could even be cuttable. I guess if you're shooting the sequel to King Kong and have the staff and resources to manage the pipeline, then it's probably a consideration. And then you have to back it all up...oy.



    I recently shot a project with the Sony F900, which is an old camera now, and it's resolution is only 1440x1080 (1.33 size pixels). Actually, I think the camera's CCDs are a true 1920x1080, but what gets recorded to tape is 1440x1080 compressed and only has a color space of 3:1:1.



    But I have to be honest. The picture quality is gorgeous. Could it be better? Yes. And to top it off, I digitized the footage using the DVProHD codec (the BlackMagic version of the codec). And I'm STILL impressed with the quality at only 100mb/sec.



    To me, having a working, reasonable, high-resolution digital image that's manipulatable with a reasonably equipped PowerMac is far more important than having more pixels on the screen.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shawk

    I'm not sure if existing sensor technology is up to the specs.

    Resolution isn't the issue, the problems are frame rate and output bandwidth at high resolution.



    It is not just present sensor technology. It is the entire workflow of cinematography. They claim 11 Mpixels/frame. This is not at the leading edge of pixel densities for professional digital still cameras, but exceeds the effective resolution of SLR film cameras. The pixel density of this camera would exceed the display resolution of most projection screens. Conventional cinema, at 24 fps, has only 40% as many frames. At 60 fps, the only thing comparable in film cinema is IMAX. By my calculations, the frames would exceed the quality of IMAX. Then, of course, there is the issue of data storage and transport. The requirements to store and move the data generated in a single production would strain all but the most affluent of producers.



    Then there is the issue of "who are these guys?" In the real world, unknowns don't just come out of nowhere with technology that is so dramatically ahead of everything elsewhere. This kind of product can't be developed by some guy in his basement. It requires numerous engineers and technicians--and $1 billions. If this announcement had been made by Sony, Canon, or Panasonic, we would have confidence that a lot of hardwork and investment money had paid off. But a website calling itself "red.com"? I don't think so.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Well we have no idea who these guys are, BUT... the specs quoted are very do-able in the next couple of years. Sony is making a huge push right now to get its 4K projector into cinemas and it may well become the 'hot ticket' draw for jaded cinema goers and a minimum requirement for Scorsese, Lucas etc. Doesn't the Panavision Genesis have a similar spec? (shooting Superman at this moment)



    You don't ever buy these things, you rent them.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    It's called super-high-def and their are companies using it. JPL (nasa) is going to use it (discussion with a employee)
  • Reply 8 of 46
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinney57

    Well we have no idea who these guys are, BUT... the specs quoted are very do-able in the next couple of years. Sony is making a huge push right now to get its 4K projector into cinemas and it may well become the 'hot ticket' draw for jaded cinema goers and a minimum requirement for Scorsese, Lucas etc. Doesn't the Panavision Genesis have a similar spec? (shooting Superman at this moment)



    You don't ever buy these things, you rent them.



    The Panavision Genesis may be close, but no cigar. It slightly exceeds red.com's pixel density, but cannot match the framerate. The Genesis maxes at 50 fps.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Well the higher frame rate allows for some better slo-mo action but most of the time these cameras are used at 24fps.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    The Genesis max data rate would actually be about the same. Somebody in the Apple Pro skunk works should be working on a X-Raid / G5 Quad cart / fibre rack as a proof-of-concept for these beasts (I volunteer )



    Sony have a 4K camera in the works apparently. With domestic cameras reaching 1920 x 1080 the 'professional premium' needs to be maintained.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    zharazi7zharazi7 Posts: 13member
    Sounds to me like their web site should be called red-herring.com



  • Reply 12 of 46
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    We'll see come NAB 2006 when everyone will expect this product to be unveiled.



    I know there's been plenty of efforts to mate 35mm DLSR CMOS sensors to handle video on an underground level. However this could in fact be a skunkworks project with a little funding. The domain red.com was purchased from another company and it had to have cost a bundle.



    Interesting comments here regarding the use of CMOS DSLR sensors and other issues. I'm excited for more info because it's nice to have someone attempt this beyond the large Japanese conglomerates.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Upping the framerate of film standards is something I'd love to see done. The bigger the resolutions the formats start to achieve, the more obvious the gaps between frames become.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    Upping the framerate of film standards is something I'd love to see done. The bigger the resolutions the formats start to achieve, the more obvious the gaps between frames become.



    I always like the look of Showscan. It was developed by Douglas Trumball. It's 70mm shot and projected at 60fps. Which seems about right as most of lights and electricity run at 60 cycles. The "Soaring Over California" attraction at Disney's California Adventures is a Showscan ride. Some of the large audience attractions at Luxor in Los Vegas also use Showscan.



    As far as regular movies are concerned, the frame rate will never change. There's something inherent in the motion blur that a 1/48 shutter creates that ingrained in people's subconscious.



    In the 1950's "Oklahoma" was shot twice. Once at 24fps and a second time at 30fps. There are still some 30fps prints out there. It definitely has a much cleaner more lifelike quality to it. But theater owners and studios rejected a move to 30fps projection because a movie would have to shipped on 9 reels rather than 6. That's 30% more weight and 30% more film stock.



    Now that we live in the digital world, things could change. But somehow I doubt it will. At the most, we could slowly switch to 30P for digital cinema and HD.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    It should also be noted that before sound, movies were shot and projected at 18fps. But that was too slow for quality sound recording. So they increased the speed 30% to 24fps for sound movies.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Great history lesson Northgate. It's amazing how decisions made decades ago for cost reasons still affect how films are made today despite the lack of the same cost issues.



    I confess to being a little annoyed at some frame stutter in some films but as you say we have all been trained to disgregard the blur that happens.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    gordoncomstockgordoncomstock Posts: 114member
    Jim Jannard, the founder of Oakley sunglasses, (and one of the richest people in the world) is behind this.



    A rich man's dabbling is rarely held to a timetable, not often concerned with fruition, and fertile ground for vaporware.



    AND, he's going to make lenses, too? Please.



    Arri, Dalsa, Viper, et al (hell, even the Kinetta!) have more substance & credibility than this guy.



    This is like one of Sam Walton's kids announcing that he's going to create the server to end all servers with outrageous bandwith specs, unimaginable processor speeds AND he's going to do it all by designing a new processor architecture while he's at it.



    Not in 2006 he ain't.



    GC
  • Reply 18 of 46
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GordonComstock

    Jim Jannard, the founder of Oakley sunglasses, (and one of the richest people in the world) is behind this.



    A rich man's dabbling is rarely held to a timetable, not often concerned with fruition, and fertile ground for vaporware.



    AND, he's going to make lenses, too? Please.



    Arri, Dalsa, Viper, et al (hell, even the Kinetta!) have more substance & credibility than this guy.



    This is like one of Sam Walton's kids announcing that he's going to create the server to end all servers with outrageous bandwith specs, unimaginable processor speeds AND he's going to do it all by designing a new processor architecture while he's at it.



    Not in 2006 he ain't.



    GC



    Interesting info Gordon. He certainly won't be making (Oakley?) lenses
  • Reply 19 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    I always like the look of Showscan. It was developed by Douglas Trumball. It's 70mm shot and projected at 60fps. Which seems about right as most of lights and electricity run at 60 cycles. The "Soaring Over California" attraction at Disney's California Adventures is a Showscan ride. Some of the large audience attractions at Luxor in Los Vegas also use Showscan.



    As far as regular movies are concerned, the frame rate will never change. There's something inherent in the motion blur that a 1/48 shutter creates that ingrained in people's subconscious.



    In the 1950's "Oklahoma" was shot twice. Once at 24fps and a second time at 30fps. There are still some 30fps prints out there. It definitely has a much cleaner more lifelike quality to it. But theater owners and studios rejected a move to 30fps projection because a movie would have to shipped on 9 reels rather than 6. That's 30% more weight and 30% more film stock.



    Now that we live in the digital world, things could change. But somehow I doubt it will. At the most, we could slowly switch to 30P for digital cinema and HD.



    I think I remember reading somewhere that Trumball initially wanted to use Showscan for theatrical features, and shot parts of "Brainstorm" (the, um, brainstorm parts) that way as a sort of proof of concept.



    But of course got exactly nowhere when he tried to get exhibitors to invest in the projector upgrades.



    For reasons beyond my ken I got to see a Showscan reel at a Chuck E. Cheese in Huntsville Alabama (my home town). Some kind of first person POV "going fast down roads and rivers and stuff" thing.



    I guess a sort of crude warmup for show rides.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Oh, and I can't see it as very reassuring that these guys would elect to name their CMOS sensor "Mysterium".
Sign In or Register to comment.