We've heard holographic display stiff before, I remember that Amazon phone, it has been terrible thus far, let's see if this is worth a hype train or not, if it's $1200 for a regular phone but an amazing camera, that would be enough for some to go for it.
If they had anything remotely resembling such a breakthrough, they would have quietly gone to Apple and Google, started a bidding war between the two, and walked away with a gazillion buckeroos.
Why? RED to the professional camera world is the same as Apple is to the smartphone market. In other words, they are quite capable of innovating themselves and getting all the money without selling their tech to someone else.
Not really. There’s more to a successful product launch than good ideas or tech. This is why inventors sell their ideas to bigger companies every day.
I never knew RED had the UI design expertise and the OS extension/SDK chops to make this thing real. Or is it another Android-with-a-gimmick differentiation attempt which becomes a kudos-killer.
I can see that 3D is cool, but it's not a game changer, especially for a phone daily use. Personally, it will annoy the hell out of me if it's not done properly (I despise the Nintento 3DS for the same reason).
I've met Jim a few times and have made a TON of money off of his cameras (which were also thought to be a scam).
I hate that it's Android - I'm not giving up my iPhone, but if it's JUST a remote for one of their newer cameras, it's already worth it. I suppose they didn't have a choice for the OS.
Jim is a billionaire many times over, so he's not just trying to get a few bucks and disappear. He's a passionate image freak and puts his money and time where his mouth is.
Worst case you get your money back. Red has always offered a no-questions-asked refund on the spot when ordering their products. They go above and beyond what even Apple does for their customers.
RED certainly turned the pro video camera market on it's head after Canon's DLSR revolution.
This sounds like a Pixel-killer, not a mass-market device. I wouldn't be surprised if it found it's niche with gear heads.
I'm not a fan of the 'modularity' concept for a phone, to be honest, but it fits with RED. I'd rather upgrade the whole device, even every year if I really needed to.
As others have mentioned, the presentation of this release leaves a lot to be desired. Pre-orders before any hardware shown seems more like a Kickstarter.
Wow...that was totally unexpected from Red. I was aware that they had plans for a large line of new digital cameras that shoot in RAW with up to something like 16k pixels (horizontally), but this is a completely different thing altogether.
I've met Jim a few times and have made a TON of money off of his cameras (which were also thought to be a scam).
I hate that it's Android - I'm not giving up my iPhone, but if it's JUST a remote for one of their newer cameras, it's already worth it. I suppose they didn't have a choice for the OS.
Jim is a billionaire many times over, so he's not just trying to get a few bucks and disappear. He's a passionate image freak and puts his money and time where his mouth is.
Worst case you get your money back. Red has always offered a no-questions-asked refund on the spot when ordering their products. They go above and beyond what even Apple does for their customers.
He's right. RED makes the best tech/machines on the planet. Most people who try RED never ever go back. RED has a camera that is over 5 years old that still is way ahead of its time as companies cannot keep up with their technology. Jim was the creator of Oakley. He knows what he's doing. In fact, you're probably reading this on your Oakley's. RED is an addicting drug. If the iPhone 8 flops...it could be game over. My wife knows how much I love and talk about my RED cameras, and when I told her they have a phone coming, she immediately agreed to switching just so she could get in on the RED action.
There aren't 100 film sources, they interpolate the frames from much fewer sources. Normally there would only be two sources. I guess the quad RED format will require 4 camera purchases, which they'll be more than happy to sell. 'Hey Jim, how do we shift more of these really expensive cameras, people are only buying 1 or 2 each?'.
The RED Hydrogen phone will have a 5.7" display (the marketing image shows the back of the phone) and being a smartphone, single direction lenticular lenses would only work in landscape:
The principle is the same, they need to show the eyes different views as they move across the display so it has to show different sub-pixels. The display has to be very high resolution. It doesn't need to be 100x normal resolution as they can blend different distinct views together. If they use lenses, they might be able to go with a surface more like bubble-wrap than cylindrical to work in both orientations:
or OLED could be manufactured with the pixels in a dome shape e.g each RGB component split into multiple smaller parts at different angles.
It would never be quite the same as a hologram as that's an analog recording of a diffraction pattern that reproduces the scene on shining light back through it. It's still a digital recording here with multiple discrete digital views that are blended together.
RED probably saw people using stereo film and needed a portable viewer to play it back on location. They couldn't just have a display as there has to be a processor to interpolate the frames so they have to build an entire device with an OS anyway. After building it they probably figured they may as well throw in cellphone capability because it is practically a phone already.
The video viewing capability isn't really a huge selling point because families aren't going to huddle round a 5.7" phone display to watch the next Avatar movie. Mobile devices are used to watch social media video not cinematic video. For games it can work but the price is too high to appeal to mobile gamers that grudge paying $0.99.
For filmmakers, it's a really portable 3D film viewer, they are serving their camera audience and it's good value vs their other peripherals:
They probably have less than 1 million total customers worldwide and a portion of them will buy the phone. That's a good amount of revenue for RED: 1,000,000 x $1200 = $1.2b. That would be more than their business makes from cameras:
Apple makes over $200b every year and sells over 200m phones. Technically everybody that makes a phone is a competitor to Apple but scale is important. I doubt RED could even manufacture 1m of these, they have to get a high enough yield on the high-res displays.
The higher that display manufacturers can push resolution at sufficient yields, the more that product manufacturers will be able to do thing likes 3D. It's still not a huge selling point on a mobile phone when people won't be viewing movies on them.
RED certainly turned the pro video camera market on it's head after Canon's DLSR revolution.
This sounds like a Pixel-killer, not a mass-market device. I wouldn't be surprised if it found it's niche with gear heads.
I'm not a fan of the 'modularity' concept for a phone, to be honest, but it fits with RED. I'd rather upgrade the whole device, even every year if I really needed to.
As others have mentioned, the presentation of this release leaves a lot to be desired. Pre-orders before any hardware shown seems more like a Kickstarter.
I don't see this as a mass-market iPhone killer at all. I bought one, but am damn sure keeping my iPhone. They will sell tens of thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands. Add in the Oakley fans and you might see a bunch more than that.
This phone/camera/platform costs about the same as one of Red's 240GB SSDs... so I think Red users will be buying these in droves.
Why so much hate already for something that doesn't compete with an Apple product, the company doesn't even MENTION Apple, and worse it's a product that none of you (save perhaps one? Maybe?) knows anything about yet other than what we all see on a one-page PDF. What silliness. Someone coming up with something Apple isn't doing yet and may not ever do is enough to get the natives all riled up apparently.
If they don't really have something to wow anyone we'll all know by early next year. In the meantime what's wrong with imagining "what if they're on to something"? We do it with Apple and on no more information and many times less (only rumors) than what Red is offering.
Why so much hate already for something that doesn't compete with an Apple product, the company doesn't even MENTION Apple, and worse it's a product that none of you (save perhaps one? Maybe?) knows anything about yet other than what we all see on a one-page PDF. What silliness. Someone coming up with something Apple isn't doing yet and may not ever do is enough to get the natives all riled up apparently.
You know what is also silly? Coming to an Apple site with the objective of constantly criticizing Apple and Apple fans, explaining how Google did it first, and general FUD dispersal. I am also often left scratching my head when I see posts like that.
I don't recall Nintendo using any kind of face tracking for their 3D. Specifically, the 3DS uses something vaguely like a lenticular lens called a parallax barrier. The main screen's real, physical pixel dimensions are 800x240, and the parallax barrier blocks half of the pixels for each eye. As a result, each eye gets a 400x240 pixel image. Since each eye only sees half of the pixels, the image can be interlaced vertically to create the 3D effect with only the screen.
This is almost certainly going to involve either a parallax barrier or a lenticular lens array.
The original Nintendo 3DS and 3DS XL (2011/12 models) had a lenticular glasses-free 3D screen with only a small sweet spot. If you moved your head too far in any direction, the 3D effect would be ruined.
However, the 'New' Nintendo 3DS and 3DS XL models introduced from 2014/15 onwards have a vastly improved glasses-free 3D system that uses face tracking to create a much larger viewing area. There's even an infrared lamp at the top of the screen to enable face tracking in dark environments.
The overall 3D effect is now much better and it really fulfills the device's initial promise. I think gaming on the New Nintendo 3DS XL is great and cranking the 3D up to maximum really adds to the experience. If RED could pack some similar technology into a phone with an ultra high resolution screen, the 3D effect might be even better.
Why so much hate already for something that doesn't compete with an Apple product, the company doesn't even MENTION Apple, and worse it's a product that none of you (save perhaps one? Maybe?) knows anything about yet other than what we all see on a one-page PDF. What silliness. Someone coming up with something Apple isn't doing yet and may not ever do is enough to get the natives all riled up apparently.
You know what is also silly? Coming to an Apple site with the objective of constantly criticizing Apple and Apple fans, explaining how Google did it first, and general FUD dispersal. I am also often left scratching my head when I see posts like that.
Absolutely agree.
That's why I personally avoid criticizing Apple or Apple fans, and NEVER saying "Google did it first". It's not helpful. I've been know to chime in when someone new comes calling here with nothing to add but FUD and insults. We would be better for it if we ALL tried our best to avoid calling each other names, trying to personally insult other members, insinuating some posters have ulterior motives, and especially knowingly repeating FUD
So we're on the same page again, twice in one week!
If they don't really have something to wow anyone we'll all know by early next year. In the meantime what's wrong with imagining "what if they're on to something"? We do it with Apple and on no more information and many times less (only rumors) than what Red is offering.
Pardon us if some of us operate on the assumption that there's been to much vaporware, too often, about which the press has got wildly enthusiastic, that went nowhere. Too many to list with Apple's competitors, yet rarely, if ever, with Apple.
So, we might be forgiven for supporting Apple's discipline in this regard, denigrating the lack of discipline amongst many of its competitors (and the fawning press) in this regard, and for having the opportunity to say, "we told you so."
Your comparison to Apple is utterly inappropriate, since it's RED that's touting it on its web pages. Name one instance in which Apple has done something similar.
That said, if RED delivers as promised, hats off to them. In either event, it all comes out good...
If they don't really have something to wow anyone we'll all know by early next year. In the meantime what's wrong with imagining "what if they're on to something"? We do it with Apple and on no more information and many times less (only rumors) than what Red is offering.
Pardon us if some of us operate on the assumption that there's been to much vaporware, too often, about which the press has got wildly enthusiastic, that went nowhere. Too many to list with Apple's competitors, yet rarely, if ever, with Apple.
So, we might be forgiven for supporting Apple's discipline in this regard, denigrating the lack of discipline amongst many of its competitors (and the fawning press) in this regard, and for having the opportunity to say, "we told you so."
Your comparison to Apple is utterly inappropriate, since it's RED that's touting it on its web pages. Name one instance in which Apple has done something similar.
That said, if RED delivers as promised, hats off to them. In either event, it all comes out good...
One instance Apple has done what?
If we hear a rumor about something Apple might do, with the latest being face unlock, there's no lack of imaginative ways it's going to be done and what will be possible with it. We did the same thing when there was rumor about remote wireless charging in the next iPhone. And rumors about a built-in AI chip. And how can you forget the wonders that liquid-metal was going to bring to iPhones. We want to believe it's all real, and it's coming, and it's amazing and.... based only on rumor.
But when Red says they've come up with something real, and it's coming and it's going to be amazing the knee-jerk reaction is it's garbage, it can't work, it's just old recycled make-believe eye trickery from Nintendo, if they really had anything good they would have sold it to Apple or Google so it's vaporware, and several more dismissive and mocking comments
I don't think that should be considered a normal reaction for folks like us enthralled by new technologies and innovations, but you seem not to see anything inconsistent here. We just see some things differently.
There are too many missing details. I doubt that Samsung or LG will be manufacturing a special run of OLED panels for such a device. It means that the phone will be built with an inferior LCD panel. Apple's agreement with Samsung has deprived the smartphone market of access to OLED panels. The Chinese manufacturers all ran to LG in a hurry and LG doesn't have enough capacity to meet the demand either. Even at the much higher prices the Chinese OEMs have been willing to pay. The effect has been that Google itself cannot source enough panels to even meet the relatively tepid demand for the Pixel.
NAND memory is also in short supply. Putting 32 or 64 GB on a 1200 dollar device is going to seriously hinder its sales potential. Great camera on a device with 32 GB of memory will not be received well.
What's the CPU? The yields on the Snapdragon 835 on Samsung's new 10 nm process have been less than expected. Samsung has the preferential contract for the CPU. Even LG has had to resort to the use of the Snapdragon 821 instead for the G6. It's likely the reason that the Pixel won't be released anytime soon with the 835 either. It means a $1200 phone with a lesser CPU also. Again, not something that is going to be received well.
How about the digital imaging sensor? The lenses can only do so much with the optics. Capturing the information in the image is also of great importance. Samsung's Isocell units are the best in the industry but not available on the market. Apple gets preferential treatment for Sony's high end units. It will be comical if the device returns images that are beaten by the Samsung and Apple flagship phones. Both companies have thousands employed dedicated just to imaging. It is very hard to see how Red can exceed Samsung and Apple in these areas.
In looking at the potential of what Red is realistically able to achieve, it is doubtful that the phone is ever released. If it does see the light of day, it will be a short lived product.
Comments
This sounds like a Pixel-killer, not a mass-market device. I wouldn't be surprised if it found it's niche with gear heads.
I'm not a fan of the 'modularity' concept for a phone, to be honest, but it fits with RED. I'd rather upgrade the whole device, even every year if I really needed to.
As others have mentioned, the presentation of this release leaves a lot to be desired. Pre-orders before any hardware shown seems more like a Kickstarter.
Jim? Is that you?
http://neildodgson.com/pubs/Stanford3D-2011.pdf
Philips made a lenticular TV in 2013, this one says it has 100 views:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/televisions/philips-60-inch-glasses-free-3d-ultra-hd-tv-1124036/review
There aren't 100 film sources, they interpolate the frames from much fewer sources. Normally there would only be two sources. I guess the quad RED format will require 4 camera purchases, which they'll be more than happy to sell. 'Hey Jim, how do we shift more of these really expensive cameras, people are only buying 1 or 2 each?'.
The RED Hydrogen phone will have a 5.7" display (the marketing image shows the back of the phone) and being a smartphone, single direction lenticular lenses would only work in landscape:
http://www.3dfusion.com/glasses-free-3d-optics.html
http://www.ebay.com/gds/Lenticular-printing-or-3D-Post-Cards-/10000000218030244/g.html
The principle is the same, they need to show the eyes different views as they move across the display so it has to show different sub-pixels. The display has to be very high resolution. It doesn't need to be 100x normal resolution as they can blend different distinct views together. If they use lenses, they might be able to go with a surface more like bubble-wrap than cylindrical to work in both orientations:
or OLED could be manufactured with the pixels in a dome shape e.g each RGB component split into multiple smaller parts at different angles.
It would never be quite the same as a hologram as that's an analog recording of a diffraction pattern that reproduces the scene on shining light back through it. It's still a digital recording here with multiple discrete digital views that are blended together.
RED probably saw people using stereo film and needed a portable viewer to play it back on location. They couldn't just have a display as there has to be a processor to interpolate the frames so they have to build an entire device with an OS anyway. After building it they probably figured they may as well throw in cellphone capability because it is practically a phone already.
The video viewing capability isn't really a huge selling point because families aren't going to huddle round a 5.7" phone display to watch the next Avatar movie. Mobile devices are used to watch social media video not cinematic video. For games it can work but the price is too high to appeal to mobile gamers that grudge paying $0.99.
For filmmakers, it's a really portable 3D film viewer, they are serving their camera audience and it's good value vs their other peripherals:
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc2-red-touch-47inch-lcd
They probably have less than 1 million total customers worldwide and a portion of them will buy the phone. That's a good amount of revenue for RED: 1,000,000 x $1200 = $1.2b. That would be more than their business makes from cameras:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-RED-Digital-Cinema-EI_IE580351.11,29.htm
Apple makes over $200b every year and sells over 200m phones. Technically everybody that makes a phone is a competitor to Apple but scale is important. I doubt RED could even manufacture 1m of these, they have to get a high enough yield on the high-res displays.
The higher that display manufacturers can push resolution at sufficient yields, the more that product manufacturers will be able to do thing likes 3D. It's still not a huge selling point on a mobile phone when people won't be viewing movies on them.
As if these camera guys could just walk in.
I don't see this as a mass-market iPhone killer at all. I bought one, but am damn sure keeping my iPhone. They will sell tens of thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands. Add in the Oakley fans and you might see a bunch more than that.
This phone/camera/platform costs about the same as one of Red's 240GB SSDs... so I think Red users will be buying these in droves.
I was hoping a new design and OS.
Lazy and pathetic.
If they don't really have something to wow anyone we'll all know by early next year. In the meantime what's wrong with imagining "what if they're on to something"? We do it with Apple and on no more information and many times less (only rumors) than what Red is offering.
That's why I personally avoid criticizing Apple or Apple fans, and NEVER saying "Google did it first". It's not helpful. I've been know to chime in when someone new comes calling here with nothing to add but FUD and insults. We would be better for it if we ALL tried our best to avoid calling each other names, trying to personally insult other members, insinuating some posters have ulterior motives, and especially knowingly repeating FUD
So we're on the same page again, twice in one week!
So, we might be forgiven for supporting Apple's discipline in this regard, denigrating the lack of discipline amongst many of its competitors (and the fawning press) in this regard, and for having the opportunity to say, "we told you so."
Your comparison to Apple is utterly inappropriate, since it's RED that's touting it on its web pages. Name one instance in which Apple has done something similar.
That said, if RED delivers as promised, hats off to them. In either event, it all comes out good...
If we hear a rumor about something Apple might do, with the latest being face unlock, there's no lack of imaginative ways it's going to be done and what will be possible with it. We did the same thing when there was rumor about remote wireless charging in the next iPhone. And rumors about a built-in AI chip. And how can you forget the wonders that liquid-metal was going to bring to iPhones. We want to believe it's all real, and it's coming, and it's amazing and....
based only on rumor.
But when Red says they've come up with something real, and it's coming and it's going to be amazing the knee-jerk reaction is it's garbage, it can't work, it's just old recycled make-believe eye trickery from Nintendo, if they really had anything good they would have sold it to Apple or Google so it's vaporware, and several more dismissive and mocking comments
I don't think that should be considered a normal reaction for folks like us enthralled by new technologies and innovations, but you seem not to see anything inconsistent here. We just see some things differently.
NAND memory is also in short supply. Putting 32 or 64 GB on a 1200 dollar device is going to seriously hinder its sales potential. Great camera on a device with 32 GB of memory will not be received well.
What's the CPU? The yields on the Snapdragon 835 on Samsung's new 10 nm process have been less than expected. Samsung has the preferential contract for the CPU. Even LG has had to resort to the use of the Snapdragon 821 instead for the G6. It's likely the reason that the Pixel won't be released anytime soon with the 835 either. It means a $1200 phone with a lesser CPU also. Again, not something that is going to be received well.
How about the digital imaging sensor? The lenses can only do so much with the optics. Capturing the information in the image is also of great importance. Samsung's Isocell units are the best in the industry but not available on the market. Apple gets preferential treatment for Sony's high end units. It will be comical if the device returns images that are beaten by the Samsung and Apple flagship phones. Both companies have thousands employed dedicated just to imaging. It is very hard to see how Red can exceed Samsung and Apple in these areas.
In looking at the potential of what Red is realistically able to achieve, it is doubtful that the phone is ever released. If it does see the light of day, it will be a short lived product.