Kind of like this?

[Steve White]

One sees product announcements like this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/05/cebit_aiptek_small_full_hd_camcorder/
and wonders what it would take to make it "Pro".

I'm guessing:
- bigger sensor (area, not necessarily resolution)
- RedCODE RAW codec
- better and/or interchangeable lenses + a line of lenses that could be used.
- full manual controls

What upgrades to this kind of camera would you require to consider it a worthwhile product?

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

Those are piles of steaming horse crap. I had one and the LCD
went out. I sent it back and they were balking about sending
me a new one. They finally did send me a new one and it
has crapped out again. I finally threw it in the trash.
Stay away and warn others. Bad products.

 

[Steve White]

I take it you've added "Quality Assurance" to the list.

I would not aspire to have this particular camera, but it is a pocket 1080p camera with a >2k bayer-patterned CMOS sensor that records to solid state flash devices.

It therefore contains most of the "ingredients" Scarlet seems to promise - minus the options that would make Scarlet more compelling, and at likely 10 times the price*.

I'm just curious as to what those compelling things would be.

 

[arun]

Better u people dont compair red products to any others so DONT GUESS NOW JUST WAIT TILL NAB 2008 APRIL

 

[Shawn Booth]

you get what you pay for - and even for a consumer HD camera, that seems like... don't have the words. i guess someone's 8 year old could start his career with one.

 

[N_Villers]

ohh the irony

ohh the irony

you get what you pay for - and even for a consumer HD camera, that seems like... don't have the words. i guess someone's 8 year old could start his career with one.

Its funny to read the above since recently when I was avidly expounding upon what I believe to be all that is great about the red to one of the top dp's here in Hungary he used the same logic to denigrate the red camera. He compared it to the the d20/genesis/cinealta etc. and said just about the same thing "you'll be getting what you pay for." If these big companies have been spending all this money and effort to get a working film alternative digital camera out into the mainstream and their units cost (and are so lousy - in his opinion) so much more, then the red cannot be for real and there will be problems etc.

Honestly, I disagree with him or otherwise I would not be spending this money and I'm sure the above referenced camera is a not worth anything but the irony is there. And additionally it does bring up the very real issue of how digital technology advances operate so exponentially ie. moore's law. Is it more than a little conceivable that 5 years down the road a little pocket camera costing the above will be a great thing - yes. Does this mean the red is not what we hope it to be - no. It just means we need to milk it for all its worth _now_ because in 10 years despite promises of future upgrades etc. it may very well be an expensive decoration.

Sorry for such a long winded diatribe - I'm more than a little tired.

 

[killfilm]

I'm guessing Scarlet is WAY better than this. But this cam does make you realize how available 1080p has become and sensors that are 2000 and above pixels.

Like i mentioned when scarlet was announced and will say it again....

Scarlet has to be unique and a breakthrough.

 

[Ethan Cooper]

I'm not sure it has to be unique and breakthrough, it just needs to be fully developed and not intentionally crippled by the manufacturer.

For years the little cameras priced under $6000 have been capable of astounding quality, but have been held back because of one main reason, their recording codec. That's why Juan began modding DVX's a few years back and came up with the Andromeda system. Right now we have Convergent Design working on a box that will allow you to pipe your SDI output (or HDMI via an SDI converter) into a high quality MPEG2 encoder and throw off the shackles of low bitrate 4:2:0 in favor of high bitrate (50Mbps+) 4:2:2. What's going on here is that people are trying desperately to circumvent the poor recording formats that cripple their cameras.

All Scarlet needs to do is give us what we've been seeking with these other solutions, but in a single system, not some box you have to buy later and strap to your camera, or a laptop tethered to your setup. Give us RAW, in one single small unit recorded to inexpensive and readily available media and you'll have a huge hit. It doesn't need to be 4:4:4, 12 bit, PL mount, nuclear powered, self healing, or all knowing, it simply has to give the consumer what's been just out of our grasp for so many years.

Free the little cameras from their bondage Scarlet, lead the revolution. (sorry, got carried away)
________
Weed Bubblers

 

[Rolland]

we rented a red last weekend, and boy have i got to tell you i sure hope scarlet is 1/4 of the weight of red one, My arms almost fell off after about 3 minutes.

 

[Ethan Cooper]

You didn't know? Cameras cost roughly $1000 per pound. That's why the Sony F23 and F35 cost so damn much.
________
Chevrolet Nova

 

[sparkhope]

we rented a red last weekend, and boy have i got to tell you i sure hope scarlet is 1/4 of the weight of red one, My arms almost fell off after about 3 minutes.

Was the camera any lighter once the lens fell off?

 

[Eugene]

Aiptek is junk and is not Mac friendly, but they do have the word pocket in the names of their cameras.
If pro cameras cost $1,000 per pound, I'll take a 2.5 lb Scarlet (w/batteries.)

 

[Rudi Herbert]

we rented a red last weekend, and boy have i got to tell you i sure hope scarlet is 1/4 of the weight of red one, My arms almost fell off after about 3 minutes.

Then you've never been "lucky" enough to hold one of the Sony or Panasonic flavors of HD cameras, or worse yet, a film camera. Suggest you start hitting the gym if you step up to the bigger guns

 

[Eugene]

other crappy pocket cams

other crappy pocket cams

Panasonic is a better brand, and they make a waterproof pocket cam. The problem is that cheap 1/6 CCD chip and lack of OIS.
If the Canon vixia HF-10 used a better codec for editing than AVCHD, then I would want one. It at least has a 1/3 CMOS chip.

 

[Copernicus]

Panasonic, yes of course,

but it seems that no one of the big one´s have understand what we filmmakers really wants!

- First, the obvious from picture, skip the LCD monitor, make it external, it´s a choice for 2nd level viewers.
- Most important, BIG enough sensor! Doesn´t need to be too big since 1" or more gives you enough space for wonderful DOF creativeness. No 1/6" though.
- Even more important, give me RAW. Why mess around with anything else? RedRAW, CineRAW etc., isn´t that an excuse just because memory interfaces of today doesn´t support real RAW in real TIME?

/Just curious...

 

[Steve White]

- Even more important, give me RAW. Why mess around with anything else? RedRAW, CineRAW etc., isn´t that an excuse just because memory interfaces of today doesn´t support real RAW in real TIME?

Absolutely not. With a good compression technology, you will always get a better picture than you can with zero compression at the same data rate. For example:

20 MB/s uncompressed at 12-bit and 24 fps is: 555,555 pixels. i.e., 0.56 Megapixels.

Using a lossless compression algorithm at about 2:1 would give you only 1.11 Megapixels.

In comparison, using a 6:1 compression algorithm gets you all the way to 3.33 Megapixels.

Many "visually lossless" video compression codecs target about 6:1 compression, and while the quality isn't mathematically identical to the original image, it's remarkably close.

Everytime you think "I want uncompressed", ask yourself if you'd rather have at least 3 times the resolution - or if you really really want that data you wouldn't even know was there. I understand the principle of wanting uncompressed well enough - but logically it never adds up. By the time we can have 4k (8.8 Megapixel) uncompressed, using the same data rate we could have 27 Megapixel capture.

 

[createra]

That's why you should workout with kettlebells... I'm up to 40kg (88 lb) now. Been practicing for two years now, so I can handle my red when it arrives ()

 

[Shawn Booth]

Its funny to read the above since recently when I was avidly expounding upon what I believe to be all that is great about the red to one of the top dp's here in Hungary he used the same logic to denigrate the red camera. He compared it to the the d20/genesis/cinealta etc. and said just about the same thing "you'll be getting what you pay for." If these big companies have been spending all this money and effort to get a working film alternative digital camera out into the mainstream and their units cost (and are so lousy - in his opinion) so much more, then the red cannot be for real and there will be problems etc.

Honestly, I disagree with him or otherwise I would not be spending this money and I'm sure the above referenced camera is a not worth anything but the irony is there. And additionally it does bring up the very real issue of how digital technology advances operate so exponentially ie. moore's law. Is it more than a little conceivable that 5 years down the road a little pocket camera costing the above will be a great thing - yes. Does this mean the red is not what we hope it to be - no. It just means we need to milk it for all its worth _now_ because in 10 years despite promises of future upgrades etc. it may very well be an expensive decoration.

Sorry for such a long winded diatribe - I'm more than a little tired.

Sounds like the DP you refer to is of the old school and is just hating on the digital realm. I know others like him.
The future belongs to the young - and the young like pixels over grain.

But when you add up the cost to put together a professional level package including support gear for the camera (ie, follow focus/matte box, standards/babies, head, etc) you have a package coming in around $110K - I am currently finalizing my purchases. While you can purchase an ARRI body for around this price, one still walks away with perhaps the best camera on the market.

 

[Copernicus]

Absolutely not. With a good compression technology, you will always get a better picture than you can with zero compression at the same data rate.

Everytime you think "I want uncompressed", ask yourself if you'd rather have at least 3 times the resolution - or if you really really want that data you wouldn't even know was there. I understand the principle of wanting uncompressed well enough - but logically it never adds up. By the time we can have 4k (8.8 Megapixel) uncompressed, using the same data rate we could have 27 Megapixel capture.

Spiff, I do understand the need for "the excellent shooting material". But, everytime I ask myself "Do I want uncompressed", my answer is Yes! I want to have all my original data and do all post-processing (demosaic algorithms included) in a platform optimized for post-processing. The camera body should not be my post-processing tool, it is my image recording tool. (My image microphone)
If you have matching interfaces sensor<->camera and camera<->memory, i.e. the same writing speed, then you have my optimal tool for image recording.

/Cop

 

[Steve White]

/Cop,

We don't have a writable interface that matches the bandwidth of a sensor. As such, some absolutely brilliant work on compression has been done that allows much higher quality results than an uncompressed workflow would allow.

Every time your memory bandwidth increases, you can use these genius tricks to bring up the quality further. So if your ultimate goal is the highest quality result, that result will always be achieved using compression.

The problem is that overly-lossy and bit-starved compression algorithms have given good compression a bad name. Even the flash video codec used on youtube is incredible... just not at the data rates youtube allots.