Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

In development...

Jim, I have noticed over the years that you have become increasingly focused on sensor technology, which IMHO is exactly where you can do the most good and make the biggest impact, technology-wise.

This DSLR thing has me very interested. Tell us more, please. :)
 
Bruce Allen said:
...I'm sure all your future competitors will do compressed RAW too. Wavelet image compression is a textbook computer science subject. I read "Wavelets for computer graphics" in 3rd year. Doing it to a sequence of RAW data frames isn't that revolutionary.

So I wouldn't bank on that as a major competitive advantage unless you guys had tighter, better software support and workflow than the other guys.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

A video tech company I used to work for also used compressed wavelet imaging on uncompressed SDI video and it was a great success for the same reasons RED is having success with it. But I agree, it isn't the most revolutionary part of the RED program.

I would say it is the combination of the technology, the philosophy, the funding, and the opportunity in the industry that makes for the perfect storm.
 
Canon mount?

Nikon mount?

Considering I have $$$$ in Canon L glass, I hope for Canon or both! I am just getting used to my 5d I purchased a little over a month ago.

You guys are absolutely crazy. I don't have to tell you that though...
 
I think the most awaited technology from red is the Adobe plug in and post production sound,
 
Impagliazzo said:
Are you familiar with RED pricing policy?

It's basically what the competition offers divided by 5.

:bleh:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that won't hold so easily for the DSLR market. Instead of talking about cameras and lens with price tags of $30-$100K, you are talking about cameras which top out at US$4-$6K and most lens are around $1.5K

RED would be better producing something to compete with the medium format digital market (eg 40-60MP Hassys) at DSLR prices. That is where prices can be cut by large amounts. All RED need is a full frame 120 sensor...

I think Canon and Nikon are about as worried about RED's DSLR about as much as RED are worried about the D90 shooting video...

Bring it on though Jim, I won't compain if I can buy something better than a D3 and Nikon glass for around US$1K. Show me the way....
 
"in development"
Sure, there always megatechnology in development.
Why is it new? the "story of technology" is an old story.

.... with small hi-res displays we don't need mirrors anymore.
Click to expand...

For me it's the opposite (by the way, i don't know why I still listen some comments): DSLR work well because they have a mirror, allow precise focus (or at least let you see things at a optical resolution which is beast - thank you Canon for not having the indispensable splitted image and microprisms in your "focusing" screens) and consume little power, while cheap consumer cameras have displays, do not allow manual focus, and need to have their batteries recharged after an hour of shooting (for several reasons, like the unstoppable autofocusing stress, like in a older Nikon model I have: such an idiot design should have made such models given away for free, as promotional models, but what pubblicity would Nikon have gained from that design? People must pay for the s..t, since when a company gives a toy for free, we know it can't be of any use, while the same product we may think it is, if it costs; but unfortunately it's still wrong).

Anyway I would never change a mirror for another LCD: the LCD is too technological, too imprecise at resolution and unreliable at contrast and color, it's too dependent, too bad in the bright sunlight, a stupid solution for a simple task. Nothing beats the reflex technology in representing the image you have to see clearly and to focus.
There are tenths millions reflex cameras in the world for a good reason. Why have less?
Even consumer reflex cameras, for half a century, have been sold very cheap with no problem at all. Why can't a modern professional digital cine camera that costs many many thousands dollars can't have it? Anytime I can buy an excellent complete best Olympus camera for less then 100 dollars. I don't believe it is difficult or expensive to implement this half-20th-century technology in a cinema tool. Bulshit. Someone have 100000 mirrors and penta prism made in china for ten dollars each, throw away the unnecessary 90000, someone make reflex digital videocameras. What the hell, after the war even my granfather made movies with a reflex movie camera on sundays. I can't believe in 2008, 8mm toys technology is out of reach. Or simply tell that XXI century cinema man can't afford what any amateur photographer of XX century used normally on sundays. Fine.
It's deliberate for some reasons.
I hope we can catch up with 8mm cameras dotations.
 
While they are at I hope RED improves dynamic range in sensors. That and being able to shoot in low light conditions are really the improvements I have been waiting on Nikon and Cannon to make.
 
Tetsuo said:
"in development"
Sure, there always megatechnology in development.
Why is it new? the "story of technology" is an old story.

For me it's the opposite (by the way, i don't know why I still listen some comments): DSLR work well because they have a mirror, allow precise focus (or at least let you see things at a optical resolution which is beast ...
Click to expand...

To me, the reflex idea is a pre-WW II antique. I once had a Primarflex in my collection of old cameras, it was fun but it is now in a museum.

Mirrors are error-prone, clunky mechanical devices which make noise and reduce focussing accuracy unless they happen to be perfectly aligned. This is why I much prefer a Leica to a Nikon or Canon. And why I really want a camera with a 1:1 display which shows exactly what I'm recording. With a DSLR, you have to guess at what the result will be like.
 
Offhollywood said:
I think lots of folks overlook the relevance of this.

A friend of mine sat down with a key Panavision executive recently in Los Angeles. As anyone who is paying attention knows, Panavision has motion picture cameras on MANY episodic television shows and has much to loose if these shows move to RED camera acquisition.

My friend asked "what are you saying when people ask about the RED?"

And his response was "I tell them that they should not shoot on RED because the compression ration is too high - there is too much compression".

The funny thing about that statement is, that is exactly WHY they should shoot on RED.

As we all know - the proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...

If you love RED pudding I see your point, but if if you love true RGB, I really don´t see why you skip the opportunity to get your hands on your own uncompressed originals. Then you can choose your own post tools AND your own platform to make your own pudding...

Jannard said:
The primary advantage to RED is REDCODE. Compressed RAW at over 23.976 fps. This is a core invention of RED that's full effects have not been seen yet.

Jim
Click to expand...

Another twist of my comment above:
I do want a intermediate tap of my TRUE original shots, i.e. uncompressed RAW. Why not using the excellent REDCODE (premium extra plus) algorithm in an external platform outside of the camera? There are so many processor boards out there (n core processors etc.), which are so much more suited for that kind of post-processing than an already (with hardcore processing) preoccupied camera platform. The camera should be the TRUE image microphone, focusing all resources on delivering a TRUE digital master version to the film maker. Thats new thinking!
 
Copernicus said:
If you love RED pudding I see your point, but if if you love true RGB, I really don´t see why you skip the opportunity to get your hands on your own uncompressed originals. Then you can choose your own post tools AND your own platform to make your own pudding...



Another twist of my comment above:
I do want a intermediate tap of my TRUE original shots, i.e. uncompressed RAW. Why not using the excellent REDCODE (premium extra plus) algorithm in an external platform outside of the camera? There are so many processor boards out there (n core processors etc.), which are so much more suited for that kind of post-processing than an already (with hardcore processing) preoccupied camera platform. The camera should be the TRUE image microphone, focusing all resources on delivering a TRUE digital master version to the film maker. Thats new thinking!
Click to expand...

Copernicus... what you suggest would suit your needs, but me and probably about 95% of the current camera ouners would not find that useful.
 
Another twist of my comment above:
I do want a intermediate tap of my TRUE original shots, i.e. uncompressed RAW. Why not using the excellent REDCODE (premium extra plus) algorithm in an external platform outside of the camera? There are so many processor boards out there (n core processors etc.), which are so much more suited for that kind of post-processing than an already (with hardcore processing) preoccupied camera platform. The camera should be the TRUE image microphone, focusing all resources on delivering a TRUE digital master version to the film maker. Thats new thinking!
Click to expand...

I'd love to see tests on the original sensor data and the Rfiles comparison. Then the value of what you are saying can be taken into consideration.
 
oldphart said:
To me, the reflex idea is a pre-WW II antique. I once had a Primarflex in my collection of old cameras, it was fun but it is now in a museum.
Click to expand...

So are pencils, paper, and rubber tires, but that doesn't make them any less useful.

There are numerous advantages to a reflex viewing system. Some have already been mentioned, but one major one that hasn't been mentioned is that it doesn't require any power. Power management is one of the biggest pains in the neck when using any electronic camera, especially one like the Red which is relatively power hungry. The ability to look through the lens without ever turning the power on is something that comes in very handy when first team is already on the set, you're about to roll, and the director suddenly asks to add a "B" camera to the shot. Having to wait a few minutes for an electronic camera to boot up is not something you want in that situation.
 
I think the idea is to have a dslr that shoots bursts of video similar to redone and then you get to pick the best shot. Already i have gained classic shots from redone that would have taken a lot longer, if not impossible to get any other way. This is the future we are talking about (I hope).
 
Red future

Red future

Hi,
I understood from todays item in "Steves Digicams" that this site is where I could learn about the Red family of cameras and put my sugestions in about what features a new camera should have.
Have I come to the right place?
thanks
Jerry
 
number6 said:
Copernicus... what you suggest would suit your needs, but me and probably about 95% of the current camera ouners would not find that useful.
Click to expand...

Number6. What RED has achieved is really impressive, I'm a huge fan. I only give out my thoughts here, hopefully in a constructive manner.

Regarding your statement, I´m not so sure of 95%. An example, for 4K RAW with e.g 12 bit depth you have an image size of approx. 12 MB uncompressed, i.e. 3 GB for each 10 second sequence. Memory isn´t so expensive and remember you only store that once! Then you can pick it up in your favorite postprocessing tool, set workspace to 16 bit color depth if you want, do your final touch and store them in any compressed size, even in uncompressed 48 MB images if that´s what you need (of course then 10 sec. equals 12 GB). If you start with an already compressed original, my belief is that you loose some crucial freedom to operate in you workflow. Thats my belief in theory, I have not done a comparison. Yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top