Bah, unfortunately I have to be the dissenting voice about RED. There have been a lot of professionals in the film/video world who have said that RED is selling a bill of goods. Now that many professionals are experimenting and comparing it with other camera systems. Many feel RED can take a good picture, but have found its not all what its hyped to be.
Bah, unfortunately I have to be the dissenting voice about RED. There have been a lot of professionals in the film/video world who have said that RED is selling a bill of goods. Now that many professionals are experimenting and comparing it with other camera systems. Many feel RED can take a good picture, but have found its not all what its hyped to be.
I would agree with you on many levels. RED One was a decent foray and quite honestly after seeing the hype over kinetta.com's camera and other DIY style cams I though RED could easily fall into this trap.
Jim Jannard is known for selling Oakely gear more than making cameras yet they've managed to ship first generation product and are at working on second generation. I gotta admit I love the David vs Goliath appeal here.
Round 2 is important though. If they nail the modularity they'll be able to deliver extensible product to so many more areas. Who wouldn't want to buy a Scarlet and know that most of your accessories and lens will be preserved and you can simply buy a new "brain" in the future. In theory sounds fantastic we'll see how things work out in practice.
I can agree RED created an interesting product that shook up the digital cinema industry and made everyone step up their game. The problem with RED is that they play some numbers games with pixels. They distill the complex imaging system down to easy to market terms such as "4K", without actually meeting the true meaning of "4K". Its just like Intel and megahertz myth.
When film is scanned at 4K resolution. Each line of the scanning sensor has 4096 red, 4096 green and 4096 blue photo sites. All combined each color uses 12 million red, green, and blue photo sites, which in the end create a 36 megapixel frame.
RED ONE uses a 12 megapixel Bayer filter CMOS sensor. Which means RED has to created a 36 megapixel frame from 4 million red, green, and blue photo sites. Which have to be de-bayered and compressed. From what I've seen at best RED One records roughly 2.8K of real pixel resolution, which is interpolated into a 4K image.
Tests have found that other camera systems such as the Panavision Genesis, Arri D21, and Sony F35 even though recording at a lower resolutions, record a much better MTF than the RED ONE.
The Scarlet and EPIC claim resolutions of up to 6K resolutions. When film is scanned at 6K it uses 6,144 lines of red, green, blue for 24 million pixels per color that produces a 72 megapixel frame. The highest resolution sensor that RED will be using is 28 megapixels.
Photosites and pixels are not the same thing. RED has never claimed they are.
After RAW debayering the camera yields a 3.2K image, not 2.8K. Ask Graham Nattress. That's still almost double what F900, F23, F35 and Viper deliver (1.9K).
Some may argue that the Sony cameras yield better color. Some may even argue that the Genesis yields slightly higher DNR. They're all great cameras and they all have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
But to claim RED is intentionally fooling people is utterly disingenuous.
Photo sites are what imaging pixels are made of. Generally you start with more photo sites to achieve a certain number of pixels, not less.
Modulated Transfer Function is how you measure the true resolution of an image. The ability to register a high MTF number has nothing to do with the end resolution. It has everything to do with imaging sensor and the method of analog to digital processing.
The Genesis, F35, and Viper have been found through testing to deliver better MTF. Its because they use better imaging techniques than RED. That is the reason most digital films are being shot on these cameras.
I wouldn't ask Graham Natress for an unbiased account of RED, he works for RED. Independent testing has found RED ONE has roughly 2.8K of usable resolution, the rest is interpolation.
RED is marketing RED ONE as a 4K camera. RED ONE is not shooting true 4K because a 12 megapixel sensor cannot produce 4K images. That's simply the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate
Photosites and pixels are not the same thing. RED has never claimed they are.
After RAW debayering the camera yields a 3.2K image, not 2.8K. Ask Graham Nattress. That's still almost double what F900, F23, F35 and Viper deliver (1.9K).
Some may argue that the Sony cameras yield better color. Some may even argue that the Genesis yields slightly higher DNR. They're all great cameras and they all have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
But to claim RED is intentionally fooling people is utterly disingenuous.
Bah, unfortunately I have to be the dissenting voice about RED. There have been a lot of professionals in the film/video world who have said that RED is selling a bill of goods. Now that many professionals are experimenting and comparing it with other camera systems. Many feel RED can take a good picture, but have found its not all what its hyped to be.
Considering RED is a start up, one can't really complain to much as the camera has had a positive change on the market place. It has changed the price performance equation for the better.
As to the hype I'm not going to get involved in that deeply. People are going to have their favorites no matter actual end product need. Remember not every digital recording goes to the big screen.
I see RED as an alternative device that breaks new ground here and there.
As to Scarlet if they can deliver it will be a very interesting platform. Especially if they can deliver the new sensor technology. From the standpoint of technology development, it is nice to see the openness of the company, there is risk in an open development effort but that is mostly from people that have never tried to develop anything themselves. As someone else has mentioned more power to them, in a sense they are the underdog souring a lot of other development.
The complaints come from how RED has been marketed. From its beginning RED was marketed as a camera that would take on established camera systems with better quality at a fraction of the cost. While RED has offered pretty good quality at a competitive price. It does not offer the quality that it was hyped to deliver, that quality does not come exactly at the price that most people thought it would.
What the RED mostly changes is the crap to quality content ratio. People think that RED will democratize the distribution of movies. Because their only continues to be more crap than ever, traditional distribution channels only close and become even more discriminative of content they will distribute.
RED actually has not been a very open company. Do not confuse marketing for real information. During the development of RED, they had been very secretive about the details of how their camera system works. As people began to use the system then the details slowly came to light, they were not at all doing anything particularly revolutionary. The real secret sauce of the RED system is its compression algorithms, outside of that they aren't really doing anything anyone else could do.
You notice no other camera manufacturer has rushed to build a camera to directly compete against the RED ONE. The major camera manufacturers still make $100,000 camera systems, and those systems are still used more frequently than RED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Considering RED is a start up, one can't really complain to much as the camera has had a positive change on the market place. It has changed the price performance equation for the better.
As to the hype I'm not going to get involved in that deeply. People are going to have their favorites no matter actual end product need. Remember not every digital recording goes to the big screen. I see RED as an alternative device that breaks new ground here and there.
As to Scarlet if they can deliver it will be a very interesting platform. Especially if they can deliver the new sensor technology. From the standpoint of technology development, it is nice to see the openness of the company, there is risk in an open development effort but that is mostly from people that have never tried to develop anything themselves. As someone else has mentioned more power to them, in a sense they are the underdog souring a lot of other development.
Comments
Maybe one day I can find one on the used market.
DAve
Bah, unfortunately I have to be the dissenting voice about RED. There have been a lot of professionals in the film/video world who have said that RED is selling a bill of goods. Now that many professionals are experimenting and comparing it with other camera systems. Many feel RED can take a good picture, but have found its not all what its hyped to be.
I would agree with you on many levels. RED One was a decent foray and quite honestly after seeing the hype over kinetta.com's camera and other DIY style cams I though RED could easily fall into this trap.
Jim Jannard is known for selling Oakely gear more than making cameras yet they've managed to ship first generation product and are at working on second generation. I gotta admit I love the David vs Goliath appeal here.
Round 2 is important though. If they nail the modularity they'll be able to deliver extensible product to so many more areas. Who wouldn't want to buy a Scarlet and know that most of your accessories and lens will be preserved and you can simply buy a new "brain" in the future. In theory sounds fantastic we'll see how things work out in practice.
When film is scanned at 4K resolution. Each line of the scanning sensor has 4096 red, 4096 green and 4096 blue photo sites. All combined each color uses 12 million red, green, and blue photo sites, which in the end create a 36 megapixel frame.
RED ONE uses a 12 megapixel Bayer filter CMOS sensor. Which means RED has to created a 36 megapixel frame from 4 million red, green, and blue photo sites. Which have to be de-bayered and compressed. From what I've seen at best RED One records roughly 2.8K of real pixel resolution, which is interpolated into a 4K image.
Tests have found that other camera systems such as the Panavision Genesis, Arri D21, and Sony F35 even though recording at a lower resolutions, record a much better MTF than the RED ONE.
After RAW debayering the camera yields a 3.2K image, not 2.8K. Ask Graham Nattress. That's still almost double what F900, F23, F35 and Viper deliver (1.9K).
Some may argue that the Sony cameras yield better color. Some may even argue that the Genesis yields slightly higher DNR. They're all great cameras and they all have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
But to claim RED is intentionally fooling people is utterly disingenuous.
Modulated Transfer Function is how you measure the true resolution of an image. The ability to register a high MTF number has nothing to do with the end resolution. It has everything to do with imaging sensor and the method of analog to digital processing.
The Genesis, F35, and Viper have been found through testing to deliver better MTF. Its because they use better imaging techniques than RED. That is the reason most digital films are being shot on these cameras.
I wouldn't ask Graham Natress for an unbiased account of RED, he works for RED. Independent testing has found RED ONE has roughly 2.8K of usable resolution, the rest is interpolation.
RED is marketing RED ONE as a 4K camera. RED ONE is not shooting true 4K because a 12 megapixel sensor cannot produce 4K images. That's simply the truth.
Photosites and pixels are not the same thing. RED has never claimed they are.
After RAW debayering the camera yields a 3.2K image, not 2.8K. Ask Graham Nattress. That's still almost double what F900, F23, F35 and Viper deliver (1.9K).
Some may argue that the Sony cameras yield better color. Some may even argue that the Genesis yields slightly higher DNR. They're all great cameras and they all have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
But to claim RED is intentionally fooling people is utterly disingenuous.
I just hope the price will not be out of this world.
Bah, unfortunately I have to be the dissenting voice about RED. There have been a lot of professionals in the film/video world who have said that RED is selling a bill of goods. Now that many professionals are experimenting and comparing it with other camera systems. Many feel RED can take a good picture, but have found its not all what its hyped to be.
Considering RED is a start up, one can't really complain to much as the camera has had a positive change on the market place. It has changed the price performance equation for the better.
As to the hype I'm not going to get involved in that deeply. People are going to have their favorites no matter actual end product need. Remember not every digital recording goes to the big screen.
I see RED as an alternative device that breaks new ground here and there.
As to Scarlet if they can deliver it will be a very interesting platform. Especially if they can deliver the new sensor technology. From the standpoint of technology development, it is nice to see the openness of the company, there is risk in an open development effort but that is mostly from people that have never tried to develop anything themselves. As someone else has mentioned more power to them, in a sense they are the underdog souring a lot of other development.
Dave
What the RED mostly changes is the crap to quality content ratio. People think that RED will democratize the distribution of movies. Because their only continues to be more crap than ever, traditional distribution channels only close and become even more discriminative of content they will distribute.
RED actually has not been a very open company. Do not confuse marketing for real information. During the development of RED, they had been very secretive about the details of how their camera system works. As people began to use the system then the details slowly came to light, they were not at all doing anything particularly revolutionary. The real secret sauce of the RED system is its compression algorithms, outside of that they aren't really doing anything anyone else could do.
You notice no other camera manufacturer has rushed to build a camera to directly compete against the RED ONE. The major camera manufacturers still make $100,000 camera systems, and those systems are still used more frequently than RED.
Considering RED is a start up, one can't really complain to much as the camera has had a positive change on the market place. It has changed the price performance equation for the better.
As to the hype I'm not going to get involved in that deeply. People are going to have their favorites no matter actual end product need. Remember not every digital recording goes to the big screen. I see RED as an alternative device that breaks new ground here and there.
As to Scarlet if they can deliver it will be a very interesting platform. Especially if they can deliver the new sensor technology. From the standpoint of technology development, it is nice to see the openness of the company, there is risk in an open development effort but that is mostly from people that have never tried to develop anything themselves. As someone else has mentioned more power to them, in a sense they are the underdog souring a lot of other development.
Dave
Anyone cares to explain to me poor ignorant what is this about and why is it so great?
Where is the still from, Red.com or Reduser.net?
Reduser.net but it has to be by way of Red because it's a shot from a prototype.
Anyone cares to explain to me poor ignorant what is this about and why is it so great?
High quality film for B movies.
High quality film for B movies.
Is it film if it's all bits?
Is it film if it's all bits?
It is if you shoot it back onto film.