Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?

[J Davis]

Technology adoption is taking place in most cases at an exponential rate.

It took 25 years for landline phones to be adopted nationwide. It took 5 years for cell phones. 1080p overtook DVD as the "gold standard" in only a couple of years. 4K is next.

Thank you Tom for summing up concisely.

I don't see the slogan 'Obsolescence Obsolete' as a promise ... I see it as a goal to strive for.
Jim's forum based business model and the fact that RED listens and alters their products on the fly, is proof of their striving. A modular approach is an intelligent way to combat obsolescence – sectioning off parts of the camera so that when they become obsolete they can easily be replaced.

Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?

2k RGB, 4k RAW ... 9k, 28k, 3D ... it doesn't matter.
What matters is the direction you choose in order to stay on the front line of change.

When considering the exponential rate of technological advances, there may come a time when the speed of such changes hits a 'zero point'. When unrelated individuals invent or discover the same thing separately ... and then are immediately superseded by a third person. For the consumer as well as the inventor and manufacturer, it will be very difficult to keep abreast of change and market direction. Herein lies the necessity of social systems like REDuser and a manufacturer that listens.

'Obsolescence Obsolete' is not something one can say 'I have achieved it' because to do that would be to deny the very nature of change.
I see Jim as an idealist and 'Obsolescence Obsolete' is his holy grail. To quest for this, means to continually be reassessing oneself. The only way to have a chance at being the leader is to choose the hardest path.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It all depends on how one interprets this "obsolescence is obsolete" concept, because it's a bit contradictory, isn't it, that to avoid obsolescence, you have to constantly implement changes and upgrades... if you eventually end up replacing every element in a camera, it becomes, defacto, a new camera... so did you avoid obsolescence, or did you just make it less apparent that the old camera was replaced by a new camera?

I think what Jim is doing is admirable, trying to lessen the pain of constant technology development, but I think some people are taking this notion of "obsolescence is obsolete" too literally, meaning that they only have to make one camera purchase once in their lifetimes, and with just some simple upgrades here and there, practically free of charge, they will always be shooting at the cutting-edge of technology.

Well, that isn't going to happen. Already the RED ONE camera design has taken a radical left-turn with the modular approach of EPIC and Scarlet, a design which does have the advantage now of making upgrades to portions easier to implement. But eventually, you know that the whole system from head-to-toe will probably go through another design re-evaluation to see if the system can be improved.

"Making obsolescence obsolete" is catchy, but a more accurate way of looking at it would be "making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

Hi,

The one HD channel I have seen looks truly awful so there is little point for most viewers.

Stephen

What country are you in?

In the states you cannot get away from HD now.
I have hundreds of HD channels coming in on fiber
and it is a big difference from watching on SD.

 

[J Davis]

I think what Jim is doing is admirable, trying to lessen the pain of constant technology development, but I think some people are taking this notion of "obsolescence is obsolete" too literally, meaning that they only have to make one camera purchase once in their lifetimes, and with just some simple upgrades here and there, practically free of charge, they will always be shooting at the cutting-edge of technology.

I think we are in agreement.

But eventually, you know that the whole system from head-to-toe will probably go through another design re-evaluation to see if the system can be improved.

You are right and I can't even begin to guess upon improvements beyond modularity.

As I said in my previous post – self re-assessment is the biggest weapon in the arsenal against obsolescence. Jim's philosophy goes beyond cameras to technology itself.

 

[Sean]

Funny, I never interpreted the "obsolescence obsolete" motto as having anything to do with upgrading your camera and parts. Having read the discussions since Red One was only a pixel in Jim Jannard's eye, I remember the motto having much more to do with the fact that the camera shot in 4K--so it was basically providing more resolution than any other camera in that price range and that 4K would be "more resolution" than we'd need since it was essentially the resolution of film. Now the debate will continue as to what the true resolution of the camera is rated to be. But I still don't think there's much doubt that the Red One can still be used to shoot a theatrically released feature film, even a theatrically released "studio" film, for a long time yet. You don't have to buy anew camera to get the "latest" resolution, because you have all the resolution you now need.

Of course then Red comes out with 5K, 6K, 28K...which to me raises more interesting questions about how much resolution finally renders obsolescence obsolete (I'm pretty sure I won't ever need 28K). But the point is I never assumed it meant I would get every new piece of technology for free. Quite the opposite, I was pretty sure that new, better cameras would captivate the marketplace within 12 months of Red One's release. Because that's how it always goes.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

"Making obsolescence obsolete" is catchy, but a more accurate way of looking at it would be "making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

Thats catchy. And true.

The way I see it. Apple sold me my macbook at full price. Two weeks later the new model suddenly launched for the same price. I got my iphone day one. four months later they dropped the price. Sure i got my 100 gift card which was half of the price drop but Apple (simply as an example of many existing company models) has a habit of not only not taking care of early adopters, but in fact punishing them.

RED has promised to endeavor to never to do this to us.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Perhaps instead of simply "Making Obsolescence Obsolete," the motto should be "Making Planned Obsolescence Obsolete." That seems much more in line with what RED is doing here.

 

[Tom Lowe]

On a related note, there are rumors now that Nikon will offer a $4,000 sensor and electronics "upgrade path" from the D3 to the $8,000 D3X. As far as I know, this is unheard of with digital stills cameras. If it's true, I think we know who Nikon users can thank.

It might also drive canon to offer upgrades for the 1D and possibly 5D series cameras. Again, if it happens, I think Jim will get some credit.

Getting back to Red, I am profoundly disappointed when I see some of my favorite members here actually arguing publicly that Jim should cripple the Scarlet 35mm line so as not to make their R1s "obsolete." Sadly, it seems that they may have succeeded in getting the 60fps option removed from Scarlet 35mm cameras. :sad: David is right when he points out that some people are taking this obsolescence thing too far. It is now (possibly) degrading the products that Jim is putting out.

 

[J Davis]

Sadly, it seems that they may have succeeded in getting the 60fps option removed from Scarlet 35mm cameras. :sad: David is right when he points out that some people are taking this obsolescence thing too far. It is now (possibly) degrading the products that Jim is putting out.

Tom, you have been inhabiting these forums far longer than I and you therefore understand RED much better, but it would seem an 'out of character' thing for Jim (or RED) to deliberately cripple any of their products.

I definitely agree with you though in being disappointed about the arguements some members present, but then again I am not an R1 owner who is in debt over my purchase (This being the only reason I could think of to explain such behaviour).

Getting back to obsolescence – and some further thoughts of mine, I requote

Jim's philosophy goes beyond cameras to technology itself.

RED has already gone beyond cameras by leaving the advertisement for REDRAY on their homepage. This indicates a future move to change the movie going cinema industry (after all they are named RED Digital Cinema).

But the REDRAY product as it stands is not modular and is therefore closer aligned to the R1. I wonder how they will apply 'Obsolescence Obselete' to the REDRAY, which IMO will become obsolete eventually.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, you have been inhabiting these forums far longer than I and you therefore understand RED much better, but it would seem an 'out of character' thing for Jim (or RED) to deliberately cripple any of their products.

I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

 

[J Davis]

I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

Gotcha! My bad... I misread you.
BTW - I very much enjoy reading and learning from your posts Tom, as well as you Sean, David, J Eric Camp and everyone else here at RedUser.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I mostly interpreted "renders obsolescence obsolete" as something along the lines of "This camera is good enough that you won't be desperately pining for something better starting on the day you unpack it from the box". Because you often are with other gear, particularly a lot of the prosumer gear that Red One adopters upgraded from. Most of the other products available at the Red One's price point or below are badly compromised by one or more of: recording formats that throw out too much information, barely-HD sensors that use tricks like pixel shifting, an inability to produce sufficiently shallow DoF or use real cine lenses without screwing with DoF adaptors, and so on.

The Red One doesn't have any of these deficiencies. In terms of the images it records, if you told me I had to shoot with the Red One for the next five years, I really wouldn't be too broken up about it.

Unfortunately, there are some other things Red didn't nail quite as well as image quality. The on-camera controls aren't great, the mini-ports are annoying, the way batteries mount is less than ideal, the 90 second boot time is a hassle, the inability to feed different looks out to external monitors and on-camera monitors makes things awkward on some sets, there's no option to shoot anything but raw on camera (and apparently no way to support both raw and non-raw shooting in the same firmware build), and the camera could do with being a bit lighter and smaller.

The new cameras appear to address most or all of these points. Whether that makes the Red One "obsolete" (despite the fact that it still records images good enough for anything up through theatrical exhibition) is more a matter of definitions than anything else.

 

[Joseph Ward]

I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

I am at disbelief of why some of the people here would want to cripple the Scarlets? I would like every camera to have more, with less prices if possible. Only technical difficulties should stop Red or what they think is best for them. That is the Red Revolution!

 

[Tom Lowe]

I am at disbelief of why some of the people here would want to cripple the Scarlets? I would like every camera to have more, with less prices if possible. Only technical difficulties should stop Red or what they think is best for them. That is the Red Revolution!

I agree with you 100%! To me, it goes against the whole idea of Red to cripple or limit cameras. That's Sony and Canon's game!

 

[James T Mather]

If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Unless I've missed something, no one has advocated crippling Scarlet.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[J Davis]

Here we go again. This topic has drifted back to 13th responses.
EDIT: oops I mean 3rd responses

 

[Tom Lowe]

If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?

 

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I'd like to make a couple points.

1)

Hi James, aka the original poster of this thread;

Mate, not to be rude or anything, I would simply suggest you re-read the 'Obsolescence Obsolete' manifesto as originally posted by Jim Jannard. I think you have confused a few different things and arrived at a conclusion that's not really relevant. As David said, OO is more about

"making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

...and this has little to do with the fact that the RED can record 4k resolution. As others have pointed out, it is beneficial to have resolutions in excess of what the final distribution requirements are. You've kind of confused a few different things that are not really related.

Having said that, I very much enjoyed reading your comments on the take-up of digital cinema projection in Australia. I am also from Melbourne and have worked as a projectionist, and reading your comments has helped confirm what I already believed about the future of digital projection here. From talking to management and getting to know a bit about the (in)ability of cinemas to spend money on expensive upgrades, I think that, all technological factors aside, cinemas simply cannot justify or afford the expense of switching to full digital, and so will need to be coaxed and coerced into it over many many years.

2)

I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever.

Hi Tom,

With all due respect, I think your above statement is indicative of the 'fanboy' tone of posting that many people are starting to feel contributes too much 'noise' to this forum.

As I have stated, the original poster in my opinion got a few different things confused, and has been adequately corrected. He was however perfectly valid in his questioning of the 'Obsolescence Obsolete' manifesto. If anything he has contributed by prompting people to evaluate what it really means.

If you make a blind assertion such as never questioning Jim Jannard, you are not contributing much to a discussion, and just creating a weird 'fanboy' environment. In such an environment the original poster becomes a 'dissenter' for daring to question Jim's OO principle. Personally I don't want to be in such an environment because it limits my ability to learn and exchange information (and therefore negates the whole point of being here in the first place).

When James T Mather asked

If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

...you replied

Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?

Personally I feel this response came across a bit terse and unnecessarily sarcastic. Now, this could be just because we're on an internet messageboard and it's hard to convey the correct tone sometimes, perhaps this is the true value of the inane smilie :biggrin:

Ok, so maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just feel that James had a perfectly valid point and you responded with un-constructive criticism that, in the absence of some emoticon, borders on a personal attack. The moderators of this forum have been making their intentions very clear on how they would like the standard of discussion on this forum to improve.

This is of course just my humble opinion, and I don't mean to cause any offense. Just perhaps be a bit more considerate with your choice of words.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Mather seems to be arguing against putting a Monstro sensor in Scarlet... in which case he is essentially arguing to cripple or degrade Scarlet. To me, that is the unwanted noise -- people asking Jim cripple certain cameras.

BTW, lol, you insult me as a "fanboy" in one breath and then lecture me about manners? :sarcasm: