SSD Module Instead of CF Module?

[Tom Wardrop]

I assume I'm not the only one who'd rather an SSD module than a CF module, so given that both modules retail for the same price, can I propose that the Scarlet 2/3" Kit come with the choice of either a CF module or SSD module? I want an SSD module simply because SSD's have a larger capacity, and are both faster and cheaper. The only thing CF cards have over SSD is their physical size; SSD's are a little bigger but still relatively small.

Alternatively, if a choice is not possible, can we give the Scarlet 2/3" an SSD reader out-of-the-box instead of a CF reader. I've included a poll so we can get an idea of which the majority prefers.

 

[Erwin Vanderhoydonks]

In this post (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=660534#poststop) you find an awser...

Asked another way, is there a chance we can swap out the side CF for an SSD from the Scarlet Fixed package and just pay the difference?

 

[Jim Retar]

so given that both modules retail for the same price

I'm pretty sure the SSD reader is quite a lot more.

That said, I still want SSD as standard and will be willing to pay the extra. Hopefully, if RED moved to SSD as standard... the price would drop a little due to scale of economics.

Moving to SSD would fit in with the new emphasis of pro tools too... only SSD will allow each camera to get the very best out of the RED technology.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

In this post (http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=660534#poststop) you find an awser...

Cool, so it seems the answer is yes.

In a year or two, SSD's will be about a $1 per GB, if not less. You can already get a 120GB Vertex 2 for under $300 ($2.50 per GB). Compact Flash as far as I'm concerned, is a dead format. SD is the future compact storage format, but really, "compact storage" does not fit well with RED. SSD's can get a lot more out of the same NAND flash chips than a compact card can, simply because you can put in a bigger and slightly more power hungry controller, which can make more intelligent decisions about how it stores data on that NAND flash. It can also spread writes over multiple flash chips as to increase performance. In other words, to increase performance of compact flash storage, you need to get faster NAND flash (which gets exponentially more expensive as you go up), where as an SSD is more economical as it can use cheaper NAND flash in smarter ways.

SSD's just have so much more going for them than compact storage such as CF or SD. Plus they feel nicer in the hand

That's my 3 cents anyway.

 

[Lee Saxon]

CF Module $500 SSD Module $2500 was the most recent word

 

[Kevin Olsen]

f*ck it, let's do it right. SSD all the way.

of the components to the system, this has the most benefit to economy of scale imho, therefore, to curtail the price jump for base level entry, I say switch to it now, not later. It will cause more headaches and slow adoption if it's approached after selling thousands more Epic and Scarlets, start the new program on the right foot.

RED One owners are the only one's effected by this switch, no one else has any investment in RED CF except them.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

CF Module $500 SSD Module $2500 was the most recent word

Why are they so expensive? Any OEM could whip up an SSD reader supporting SATA 6gbps for under $100. I can understand that RED may charge a premium, as to cover implementation cost on the software side of things in addition to support and putting their name on it, but I can't see any justification for a $2500 price tag. I would expect $500 max for a simple reader/writer as that should cover cost of research, manufacturer, quality assurance and after-sales service. All the logic of reading and writing to the SSD should be handled by the controller within the SSD itself. All RED really needs to do is perform the software implementation of the SATA interface so it can communicate with the SSD (or 2.5" hard-drive for that matter).

Of course, I don't know the specifics, but I would not think there'd be much difference between a RED SSD module, and high-performance SSD SATA 6gbps enclosure/controller for a computer. I guess we may find out when final pricing and specs are released.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Everyone would want the SSD option over the CF card if they were indeed the same cost...but that's not the case and nor even close. Though I may wind up with the SSD, don't be looking for it to be a default.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Remember, the SSDs that RED is using with the new camera systems use a custom (pinless, if I recall correctly) connector, not the standard SATA connection. This is to ensure reliability and consistent performance over time.

Also, remember that when a manufacturer claims "N MB/s Write!" they are more often than not talking about a peak write speed which may occur only for a fraction of a second. The average write speed for many disks (both SSD and CF) is usually much lower than the advertised write speed, which contributes to the perception that there is some huge premium being paid for RED media when, in fact, it's just really stable, really fast storage that is expensive to begin with.

 

[Pavel Dolgov]

SSD is great. But in case of RED, we are talking about proprietary SSD format. So forget about cheap SSD from the shop around the corner. And SSD from RED are really expensive... and you need at least 2 disks to work comfortably.

 

[Jim Retar]

Maybe start a new poll to see if people would switch to SSD and pay, say, $1500 extra.

$2500 - $500 (for CF) and $500 (reduction due to scale).

I would definitely be in.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Hmm, the cost of accessories, along with their propriety nature seem to be the biggest turn off for me.

It makes perfect sense however from a business perspective. RED gets to advertise and sell the camera bodies cheaply (as to get people interested), while making plenty on the accessories. Making components propriety also helps alleviate the load on support, where compatibility issues which are beyond RED's control may arise.

But even with all that considered, the cost of RED's digital storage solutions are definitely a bit rich. Either charge a lot ($1000+) for a standard SATA-compatible SSD module with which you can use the SSD of your choice, or, make the SSD module cheaper (< $200 or free), but charge a premium for RED's propriety SSD's. Double dipping by putting such a hefty price on both the SSD module and the SSD themselves just kills it for me.

Also, remember that when a manufacturer claims "N MB/s Write!" they are more often than not talking about a peak write speed which may occur only for a fraction of a second. The average write speed for many disks (both SSD and CF) is usually much lower than the advertised write speed, which contributes to the perception that there is some huge premium being paid for RED media when, in fact, it's just really stable, really fast storage that is expensive to begin with.

From the R3D samples I have which were taken by RED 4K MX cameras, the bit-rate seems to be 40MB/s at the most. Adding on HDRx™™, that will become more like 80MB/s (from what I've heard). Now let's say you're recording at 5K instead, let's bump that up to 100MB/s. This is your theoretical worst case scenario. This doesn't however factor in high-speed recording at say 96 fps, but I have no idea how REDCODE handles that (of if high-speed and HDRx™ are a supported combination), hence any figure I pull out of the hat will be meaningless.

Now, turn your attention the graphics on this page from AnandTech; probably the most respected hardware analysis site on the net...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-special-sauce-sf1200-reviewed/5

All but the ancient Intel SSD's well exceed 100MB/s (The Intel drives were engineered for higher I/O's than sequential read/writes, so they wouldn't be a good candidate anyway). The OCZ Vertex 2, one of the best and most competitively priced SSD's on the market, can pull a sustained write speed of 250MB/s, completely saturating the SATA 3gbps bus speed. A 120GB one of these will cost you just over $200 USD, but the prices will only continue to drop.

It would be a real shame if we couldn't leverage this technology and ride on the back of the consumer SSD market.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I was the one who asked Jim if we would be able to substitute the SSD model for the CF module in the kit for the Fixed Scarlet. His answer came back quickly; a simple, unqualified "Yes." So, as of that moment in time, I'd say he planned on allowing either option to be delivered. RED has said several times that CF cards will still work quite well on Scarlet. (Of course, "...subject to change.")

As far as the discussion of cost goes, I think it pays to remember that RED's proprietary hard drives and CF cards were also quite expensive relative to comparable products, and for good reason. They determined that "off-the-shelf" products were just not reliable in handling the data rates and so, they had to engineer their own. I don't think it is fair to claim that RED buyers didn't gain something from the advances in the overall consumer market for these technologies. I am sure that the improving cost structure for manufacturing them did filter somewhat to the RED products. It's just that they didn't alleviate the need for further refinement; hence a proprietary product at a higher cost.

If I remember correctly, future REDCODEs will be referred to in terms of their data rates and there has been a lot of reference to REDCODE 100 (100 MB/s), all the way up to REDCODE 250 (250 MB/s). (Max on the Scarlet would be REDCODE 100, I believe).. This means that the recording media will have to be capable of handling some pretty high continuous write speeds, and will have to do so in more situation if people use the double stream recording associated with HDRx™. RED has been very open about the fact that they have tried but just can't find products that can reliably meet the spec. Personally, I agree that it is disappointing that the products cost so much more but, as everyone here is aware, the frustration with not getting the shot you need would be far worse.

The good news is that the price will go down over time. I paid $1300 in about 1988 for a 10 MB external hard drive. Now THAT'S expensive! :scared:

 

[Michael Olsen]

TLDR;

Fast, durable, and reliable media is expensive. Look at other alternatives - P2, SxS, CODEX, etc. I doubt RED is trying to pull one over on anybody.

--

I really doubt that RED's pricing on something like storage reflects some sort of "printer" scheme (FREE PRINTER! $65 for ink that lasts three weeks...).

Rather, I think it reflects the very apt concept that storage medium is absolutely mission critical. It's the digital world's negative. It can hold literally thousands of dollars worth of data very easily. And to have one that chucks out on you because the connector pulled off or the internals weren't built well...that just sucks. And it just cost you a lot more than a few hundred dollars extra for a drive that wouldn't have done that. No to mention, some things can't be reshot (I would feel terrible to have a HDD drop and lose footage of a wedding or something emotional of that sort...an expensive stunt would do it too...)

And RED doesn't want to be a company that sucks at anything. So we have to* pay more for storage which is far more reliable than that which I can grab off the shelf at Office Max or order from NewEgg.

*Have to is an odd phrase here, because, given the choice, I know many who would.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Ok, I get the media itself may have a premium price attached to it because of higher quality components and thorough compatibility testing, etc. That's not too hard to justify. What I find hard to justify is $2500 for a SSD reader/writer. Considering that most of the logic for reading/writing exists in both the SSD itself, and the camera's firmware, $2500 for a piece of equipment which would does little more than translation (if that), is hard to get my head around. I just can't see how there could be a $2000 difference between two pieces of what I can only assume are identical pieces of equipment, just with different physical and logical interfaces. Even my little $400 netbook can read/write to an SSD at 3gbps, and the component responsible for doing that probably only costs $10 wholesale.

Unless of course my assumptions are completely wrong, and RED plans to put the SSD controller and all the logic in the SSD module, and keep the SSD's themselves as dumb memory banks. Either way, none of this explains why the RED STATION (http://www.red.com/store/750-0007), which would do much the same thing, only costs $250?

I hope someone can fill me in here.

 

[Chuck Z]

Tom, there is no sense in trying to analyze it. Many have tried (including myself); all have failed.

Just be prepared to pony up for whatever media reader Red will sell, be it SSD or CF.

 

[Tom Wardrop]

Oh well, at least I'm not alone on this.

One last thing to consider (to drive home my point, in case I haven't already)...

You can either get a MacBook Pro 15" with SSD, or for the same price, you can buy an SSD reader/writer for your RED, without an SSD.