Major improvement... free as usual.

[Mark Pedersen]

Great post Steve. Thanks.

I'd like to hear more as well! Just got my MX upgrade, and have Epic on order.

Thanks for everything you're doing Jim.

Hope you're feeling great these days.

M

 

[Bill Anderson]

It is this sort of (not unfrequent) news that makes it impossible to predict what people are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to predict: Scarlet versus this and Epic versus that, and so on. Jim's brilliantly crazy unorthodoxy makes it impossible to know what we're in for when it comes to features (and related cost). But we don't need a crystal ball to know that there is no other camera line being made with an upgradable future like RED's (and an upgradable past when you consider this news). I see nothing else remotely close to this working model.

 

[Elsie N]

Of course, the more you give us, the more we want... like a pathway for Stage 3 Epics to keep their R-1s instead of turning them in. Also, one wouldn't expect the same sweetheart deal that was provided for Stage 2, but....?

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Looking forward to work with my older M and newer MX footage probably using that newest RCX build...?!!

Unfortunately sold R1-MX recently and can't use that newest camera build...

Hopefully EPIC is coming this year...??!!

 

[Sam Taylor]

Thank you so much Red Team! Awesome! Looking forward to shooting with an even better red one!

 

[Álex Montoya]

I'm shooting in a week. Will the new firmware be up by then?

 

[M Most]

I think that is great news!!!!!....one concern though....does that mean our NLEs (Adobe/Apple/Avid) are going to have to update their plugins to support those new enhancements and color science? If so, can someone from RED please make sure those companies are aware of the coming changes early enough so we don't have to wait weeks/months before we can actually use those improvements (without resorting to transcoding everything in Redcine-X)

This is a very important point that needs to not be overlooked. Backwards compatibility is a very, very major issue for those of us working on continuing projects like television series. The lack of backwards compatibility in the last series of changes (i.e., the introduction of the M/X sensor) led to a situation in which material would show up from an upgraded camera without warning, and any software using the SDK - which was not released "officially" in time for the sensor introduction - was basically broken. Red did relatively well in getting "alpha" versions of the new code to selected partners (Filmlight was one of them), but the situation was pretty chaotic for some time. If the new improvements are going to cause the same situation, it would be good to know that ahead of time, to get code in the third party vendors' hands with enough lead time to implement it before the release of the camera firmware, and to allow for backwards compatibility so that if a continuing series were to switch to the new firmware without warning that we could still process the material without breaking our established Red work flows, especially when those work flows involve working directly from the original R3d files for final finishing - something Red has recommended and supported from the beginning.

I know that the majority of posters here are individual owner/operators, and do a lot of "do it yourself" work. But there are also a number of us who work in the industry on higher end equipment that needs to also be supported, and who work on projects that continue over a longer period of time that require a higher degree of stability, or at least compatibility.

 

[Jason Diamond]

What about putting the MX sensor back to its intended speed of 5ms. I think right now with the current builds its still at the same speed as the original M sensor, which is around 8-9ms.

Thanks for reminding me of that Andrew?

Is the EPIC firmware tied to the RED One firmware update of the faster MX read/reset?

Excited to see the improvements in this new Build regardless.

thanks Team!

 

[NormLi]

Awesome but does this mean that matching between footage shot on a R1 and an MX can now be matched better? I was in an unfortunate position of shooting in low-light and having an R1 as B-cam and MX A-cam and the footage at 400-500 is completely different (obviously) but can this now be reduced/eliminated?

 

[Deanan]

This is a very important point that needs to not be overlooked. Backwards compatibility is a very, very major issue for those of us working on continuing projects like television series. The lack of backwards compatibility in the last series of changes (i.e., the introduction of the M/X sensor) led to a situation in which material would show up from an upgraded camera without warning, and any software using the SDK - which was not released "officially" in time for the sensor introduction - was basically broken. Red did relatively well in getting "alpha" versions of the new code to selected partners (Filmlight was one of them), but the situation was pretty chaotic for some time. If the new improvements are going to cause the same situation, it would be good to know that ahead of time, to get code in the third party vendors' hands with enough lead time to implement it before the release of the camera firmware, and to allow for backwards compatibility so that if a continuing series were to switch to the new firmware without warning that we could still process the material without breaking our established Red work flows, especially when those work flows involve working directly from the original R3d files for final finishing - something Red has recommended and supported from the beginning.

I know that the majority of posters here are individual owner/operators, and do a lot of "do it yourself" work. But there are also a number of us who work in the industry on higher end equipment that needs to also be supported, and who work on projects that continue over a longer period of time that require a higher degree of stability, or at least compatibility.

The SDK already supports backwards compatibility and third parties can provide an option to drop to the earlier color science version.

 

[Cal Brunker]

That's awesome news! I'm already down for an epic stage 2, but RED's still spending money to improve my prior investment (while perfecting my new one). It's kind of like the experience I had with... shit, I got nothing. Only RED rocks this hard!

 

[M Most]

The SDK already supports backwards compatibility and third parties can provide an option to drop to the earlier color science version.

My concern is that updated cameras will be used with the new firmware without notice, and that the new firmware will require the new software, which may or may not be available yet in third party programs - you get the picture. That's what happened last time, and what I'm hoping is avoidable this time. Backwards compatibility was perhaps not the most accurate way of describing what I'm concerned with, although it is, of course, a concern. I just want the stuff to work, regardless of what firmware revision is on the camera that I'm getting material from. And that can only happen if the software is ahead of the firmware, something that has not been the case in the past.

BTW, I think it's probably time for that long awaited lunch one of these days. I'd like to talk about some things with you when you've got some time.

 

[Casey Green]

Outstanding news. Much appreciated, Jim.

I agree with those who have expressed concern over compatibility with third party products.

In keeping with the new RED mantra of holding back on announcements until the product is ready, I'd like to see the availability of updated color science (firmware and RED apps) fully supported from the major third parties simultaneously (or at least they are given a reasonable amount of time to integrate it before RED releases the firmware - perhaps this is already the case).... this may delay things weeks or months, but I feel it would be well worth it in the long run.

Thanks again for the continued updates!!!

 

[Villetanttu@mac.com]

Hey Ville.. this is the first I have heard about your problems, let me check into it, don't worry we will take care of you.

Hello & Thanks! This is great, we are happy! thanks everyone for positive messages. Life is great. Ville

 

[Tim Sutherland]

Outstanding news. Much appreciated, Jim.

I agree with those who have expressed concern over compatibility with third party products.

In keeping with the new RED mantra of holding back on announcements until the product is ready, I'd like to see the availability of updated color science (firmware and RED apps) fully supported from the major third parties simultaneously (or at least they are given a reasonable amount of time to integrate it before RED releases the firmware - perhaps this is already the case).... this may delay things weeks or months, but I feel it would be well worth it in the long run.

Thanks again for the continued updates!!!

What would make sense then is to just not upgrade camera firmware until you are sure it is compatible with the post tools you need. I can't imagine upgrading firmware I'm the middle of a series or feature without extensive testing all the way through the pipeline. I don't even use the internet on my main workstation for the series I'm working on now for fear of an update messing up some sort of software compatibility.

 

[Rami Mustakim]

When ?
:thumbsup:

 

[M Most]

What would make sense then is to just not upgrade camera firmware until you are sure it is compatible with the post tools you need. I can't imagine upgrading firmware I'm the middle of a series or feature without extensive testing all the way through the pipeline. I don't even use the internet on my main workstation for the series I'm working on now for fear of an update messing up some sort of software compatibility.

Not everyone owns their own camera. And not everyone knows who's going to be doing the post production, or on what systems, when cameras are being prepped. And not everyone has the same healthy attitude as you regarding upgrading in the middle of a project. One of the big problems we have today is that information is given by hearsay, by Internet, and by rumor. Someone in the camera department might say "oh yeah, EVERYONE supports the Mysterium "X2", there won't be a problem." And almost as if by magic, everyone believes and accepts that without checking it out. That may not happen on your set. I've seen it happen too many times on others, though.

I think it remains incumbent on Red to make sure that the software release, along with its integration into third party products, happens before the firmware release this time to avoid such confusion.

 

[Deanan]

My concern is that updated cameras will be used with the new firmware without notice, and that the new firmware will require the new software, which may or may not be available yet in third party programs - you get the picture. That's what happened last time, and what I'm hoping is avoidable this time. Backwards compatibility was perhaps not the most accurate way of describing what I'm concerned with, although it is, of course, a concern. I just want the stuff to work, regardless of what firmware revision is on the camera that I'm getting material from. And that can only happen if the software is ahead of the firmware, something that has not been the case in the past.

BTW, I think it's probably time for that long awaited lunch one of these days. I'd like to talk about some things with you when you've got some time.

SDK support was out well before the upgrade program had started. You're referring to a few prerelease cameras that were out in the field. A beta sdk was available for those that need it for productions using the cameras. There needed to be a period where we vet things in the sdk/firmware with a smaller group before we go to a general release. Doing a mass release before it's gone through this process causes more problems when you have hundreds of developers to consider.

 

[Casey Green]

What would make sense then is to just not upgrade camera firmware until you are sure it is compatible with the post tools you need. I can't imagine upgrading firmware I'm the middle of a series or feature without extensive testing all the way through the pipeline. I don't even use the internet on my main workstation for the series I'm working on now for fear of an update messing up some sort of software compatibility.

Absolutely true. There are, however, individuals as well as rental companies who get caught in thinking that the latest firmware (release version) - which may also have a desired new feature, such as a new resolution mode (4.5K for example) is what they should have installed on their cameras or is needed for their project.

Perhaps a solution to this would have been to keep color science as a separate configurable option apart from firmware build.

For example, you can load Firmware v30.5.0, which defaults to the latest color science, but if you really wanted to, you could independently revert back to older color science by loading a separate file (similar to how the SDK allows apps to do this).

While this may sound interesting - I suppose RED would like to try and keep people using the latest and greatest and not look back, so not offering this option, while individually useful, probably makes better business sense.

 

[Deanan]

I think it remains incumbent on Red to make sure that the software release, along with its integration into third party products, happens before the firmware release this time to avoid such confusion.

We can't control what third parties do with their release schedules. Holding back firmware while we wait for third parties to release is impractical and also prevents proper firmware feedback from the field.