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 :)

Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?

Hi, Relatively new here but thought I could add to the conversation here.

It seems that the original poster is trying to compare cinema acquisition obsolesence and cinema projection obsolesence - the 2 are independent of each other, and as such, not really within Red's domain IMHO.

Perhaps this comes from the video line of thinking that everyone needs to acquire, edit, master, deliver at the same resolution. While I'm new to video (about 2-3 years now) I've got well over 15 years in graphic design. Even after 2-3 years in video I still cant wrap my head around that logic other than the fact that processing and storing large resolution video can be cost prohibitive. But from the GD world you really should acquire and edit a minimum of 2x delivery resolution. Depending on the work you really want to be shooting for 5-10x delivery resolution to be abosultely certain that you have the best possible picture at delivery.

To me, the obsolesence is obsolete theme means that Red is striving to prevent a forced upgrade for minimal feature sets. Using Canon as an example. If you started with an XL1 (prosumer) but were frustrated with it's lack of features and picture, along comes the XL1s. This isn't a firmware or sensor upgrade, its a full blown hardware upgrade. Same again when they improve upon it and go to the XL2 - then HD and you would need to jump to the XL-H1, they now have the XL-H1s. So keeping up with the times, you've bought and paid for 5 cameras over the past 10 years - full price for each.

Wheras with the Red's obsolesence obsolete model; they continue to push the sensor (17 builds now/18?) In Canon's world that would have been a minimum of 5 new cameras if not a full 16. Plus, making the sensor upgradeable makes the R1 no longer in threat of obsolecense, even with the new camera lines announced.

As far as the upgrading of the theatrical experience - theatre owners are slow to move with changes; this is more a cost/benefit reason than availability. If it wasnt for subsidsed benefits and rebates from manufacturers it's doubtful that we'd see many 3D projectors in theatres today. 4K may go the same route - but it's market that will determine things not the availability of technology - if that were the case, noone would remember dialup because DSL technology was developed in the 70's. As of now, I think after getting theatres finaly to a digital projection platform; convincing them they'll need to spend another $200,000-$300,000 per projector will send most of them saying "No thanks"

The same thing in the HD tv lineup. If it wasnt for the legislation being passed in '01 or '02 - most stations probably wouldn't be broadcasting in HD. As for over the air; most I'm seeing are just 480P just so they're compliant with the new laws.
 
Tom said:
Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?
Click to expand...

Don't get personal Tom. This is an open forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion. No, I am not Jim Jannards business advisor but I am someone who has invested fifty grand in their products so far and one-hundred and sixty overall in a Red based system. How many reds have you purchased Tom?

In response to your nasty post. I am in favour of Red limiting options on the lower priced cameras as I shall be potentially out there utilizing their products and don't want a nine grand camera competing for jobs with one that costs forty. Is that okay by you? Maybe you can now stop trying to censor people - sorry if to you it's "unwanted noise".

I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.

I am not Jim Jannard's business advisor but if he wants me to keep spending money with his company then he had better have more demarcation between his products as regards cost vs. features. I personally am reconsidering spending 40 grand x 2 for Epic brains for just some high speed when I can have more or less the same for nine. So that's one customer he might have lost for the high end camera due to overspeccing Scarlet.
 
Tom said:
BTW, lol, you insult me as a "fanboy" in one breath and then lecture me about manners? :sarcasm:
Click to expand...

actually i was pretty careful to be polite and respectful. 'fanboy' was not meant as an insult but used as a convenient description. it sums up neatly a particular attitude.
 
James T Mather said:
I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.

I am not Jim Jannard's business advisor but if he wants me to keep spending money with his company then he had better have more demarcation between his products as regards cost vs. features. I personally am reconsidering spending 40 grand x 2 for Epic brains for just some high speed when I can have more or less the same for nine. So that's one customer he might have lost for the high end camera due to overspeccing Scarlet.
Click to expand...

So you are on the record requesting Jim to cripple cameras and not to "overspec" them. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree, and many others will too. That is what Sony and Canon have been doing for decades. When you find yourself asking Red to degrade their products or hold back technology, somehow we have gone down the wrong path, IMO.

I wouldn't worry about Jim's business skills or plans. Let him worry about that. He doesn't need business advice, and he doesn't need to be hounded by people asking him to degrade his cameras.
 
Or people "hounding" him for high speed - count your own posts.

ps - Curious what you mean by "we" - how much have you invested in Jim's products thus far?

I'm just asking as you seem to have his business needs so close to your heart.
 
James T Mather said:
Or people "hounding" him for high speed - count your own posts.
Click to expand...

3K@60fps were specs Jim came up with and announced, which certain people then tried to convince him to REMOVE from Scarlet specs. You are publicly saying yourself that you want that feature crippled or removed.

Like many people, I simply want Jim to be able to make the best cameras he can make, PERIOD. You have an opposing view.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. I have said my piece.
 
Yes Tom I am PUBLICLY saying it. Out Loud. In public. Without pants.

I hope the KGB don't take me away.

Tom, Lets not confuse our terms here - your dramatic language betrays your needs - Jim Jannard is not "CRIPPLING" cameras - they are offering features in line with pricing (like every other company in history). You don't want Jim to make the best camera he can - you want Jim to make the CHEAPEST camera he can because it suits your agenda and budget.

My agenda is different. I want Jim to make the best camera he can and am prepared to pay for it.
 
Alright, everyone calm down. This is getting personal and it's time to either calm down or find another thread to post in. Last warning.
 
Whoa its gettin' hot in here!

Its in the nature of technology to get cheaper. So what if a Scarlet is the new R1 at a cheaper price?
There's nearly a two year gap between their arrival dates. And as mentioned before ... technology is advancing at an exponential rate.
Therefore - adapt.

Your equipment is going to devalue no matter what and devaluation has to be something you factor into any investment. To me, that is the whole point of the modular DSMC. So we can isolate and replace old parts and not the whole shebang. Yes your S35 of FF35 brain will be obsolete one day, one year. Factor it into your business plan and replace it. Same goes with batteries, IO, storage device and everything else.

I think it is a gross misjudgement of RED as company to think that they would try and cripple their own line. I'm not being a fanboy here but use your common sense – it is contra to their buiseness model and their whole modus operandi. Asking for it or hoping for it or talking about it IMO is wasted energy.

Wouldn't it be better to assume that they are trying to deliver the biggest bang for your buck across every different model? and then plan around that?
You figure out what you can afford and stop looking at specs for cameras that you can't afford.
 
Its a moot argument in any case - Red have said that high frame rates are prohibitive to manufacture anyway.

Where did this term "crippling" come from anyway? It's just emotive blackmail language designed to infer a negative connotation. Features on products are 'in-line' with pricing for a lot of reasons - R&D costs, manufacturing costs, state of the economy etc. Its the way of the world. Red is, after all, a company. Not a charity.

BTW - I suggest we change "crippling" to "hobbling" (like in the movie Misery) - it's even more emotive - As in: "I hope Jim doesn't hobble the camera/my dreams. Jim, what are you doing? Put down the sledgehammer". (this btw - is a joke)



Tom, no hard feelings - we all have our reasons and agendas for seeing things as we do. It will all level out in the end - and Jim/Red might find a way to get back 60fps for ya. If not, check out twixtor plugin for After Effects - I have taken shots from 25fps up to 100fps which look utterly "in camera" due to some pretty good morphing tweening (not great with liquids but works well for everything else). Peace.
 
I think the huge difference in price between the models will already be very difficult to explain to the majority of producers. "yeah, this one does higher frame rates, but it's $21k more, and has the same sensor as the 7k model" "this has a slightly better sensor, but it's $26k more"

I'm not complaining, I'm just being a realist on how many folks will view the line up.

As far as "hobbling", well if, and a big if, Red is simply "leaving a switch turned off" or is leaving out a small inexpensive part, then in my view that would be "hobbling" to protect the product line. Can they do that, sure! They are a company that needs profit, etc. It just never seemed to be in their corporate DNA.

Jim's big message of late, was that frame rates will cost real money. Well, apples to apples, it looks like they cost $21k. (Scarlet S35 to Epic S35)

(BTW - I understand there is probably much more technology needed to drive those frame rates and I'm not suggesting it's as simple as leaving a switch turned off. I think the addition of 72fps at 2k is an excellent compromise for the occasional need)

Cheers,
Chris
 
Let me first begin by saying that some of the comments I have from my initial post are gems to read. The inciteful alternative perspectives are very helpful to my.

Some feed back now.
The OO tag line;
I had not read the OO tag line definition. From memory, it was mentioned before the lego vision of the RED product line was made available. As such, the context I had of it by RED promotion online was that, in part, the OO tagline was to represent that you are using such a high resolution, that it is not going to be obsolete for such a long time, it didn't really matter. NOTE: this was only my perception, and I was most likely wrong, just wanted to make it clear were I was coming from. Tho, the new announcemrnt definatly follows this idea.

I would also like to add a point about acquisition. Some have made very good comment that over sampleing is one of the main reasons RED is such a good product. I completely agree, but I am a little more pointy nosed about where and when.
Looking at the 5D for example. It is a 22mega pixel, sampled down to 1920x1080 14bit (Or 12 forget witch) 4:4:4 then squeezed into a bad codec implementation of a ral time H.264 at 8bit 4:2:0.
Putting the export codec aside, looking at the possible lossless 1920x1080 result from both camera.. RED1 (or newer types) and a 5D. Both will be amazing and very equil.
If your final destination is HD, then you have the result you need now without any extra storage or processing.
Going with access to the over sampled source does have some advantages. When is it justified to shoot over sampled?

Looking at the 5D is an example of the future cost of 35mm sensor from manufacturers beyond RED.

If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.

My main concern here is the lack of understanding by a lot of producers. (And the bending of the truth by some production hoses to get people to do 4k. $$$$)

I personally am very excited to see Canon start playing in this playground. Completion or alternative incite will defiantly make RED a better camera.

If Canon does release the 5D sensor in a camera that is a film camera first and stills camera second. (5DmkII is obviously a Still camera first.) RED will defiantly have some competition of part of the proposed new range. (Scarlet region)
 
James Gardiner said:
Let me first begin by saying that some of the comments I have from my initial post are gems to read. The inciteful alternative perspectives are very helpful to my.

Some feed back now.
The OO tag line;
I had not read the OO tag line definition. From memory, it was mentioned before the lego vision of the RED product line was made available. As such, the context I had of it by RED promotion online was that, in part, the OO tagline was to represent that you are using such a high resolution, that it is not going to be obsolete for such a long time, it didn't really matter. NOTE: this was only my perception, and I was most likely wrong, just wanted to make it clear were I was coming from. Tho, the new announcemrnt definatly follows this idea.

I would also like to add a point about acquisition. Some have made very good comment that over sampleing is one of the main reasons RED is such a good product. I completely agree, but I am a little more pointy nosed about where and when.
Looking at the 5D for example. It is a 22mega pixel, sampled down to 1920x1080 14bit (Or 12 forget witch) 4:4:4 then squeezed into a bad codec implementation of a ral time H.264 at 8bit 4:2:0.
Putting the export codec aside, looking at the possible lossless 1920x1080 result from both camera.. RED1 (or newer types) and a 5D. Both will be amazing and very equil.
If your final destination is HD, then you have the result you need now without any extra storage or processing.
Going with access to the over sampled source does have some advantages. When is it justified to shoot over sampled?

Looking at the 5D is an example of the future cost of 35mm sensor from manufacturers beyond RED.

If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.

My main concern here is the lack of understanding by a lot of producers. (And the bending of the truth by some production hoses to get people to do 4k. $$$$)

I personally am very excited to see Canon start playing in this playground. Completion or alternative incite will defiantly make RED a better camera.

If Canon does release the 5D sensor in a camera that is a film camera first and stills camera second. (5DmkII is obviously a Still camera first.) RED will defiantly have some competition of part of the proposed new range. (Scarlet region)
Click to expand...


First and foremost I have to say thanks for coming back on topic :biggrin:

Second; The 5d sensor doesn't downsample; it's skips rows and just simply doesn't read the full sensor to get the data it's pumping into the 1980x1080 final product - lastly, it's throwing it into a very poor compression that makes it difficult to edit in...correction, editing isn't that bad, it's the color grading that gets to be a pain. So, while I might agree with you that this is fine for SD production only (keeping in mind DVD is still SD) it wont cut it when thrown up to a 2K digital projection.

While the geek in me is extactic about the 5d and what it is doing; the craftsman in me says that this just wont cut it for 90% of the work that's out there. Now, if canon can provide or develop a digital RAW format similar to Redcode or Cineform instead of trying to meet the HDV standard, we'll have a terrific product on our hands, and a competitive marketplace to boot :biggrin:

As for the original context; really I dont see greater than 2k used for standard cinema. IMAX on the otherhand, I think was 6k delivery; so a 9k acquisition is almost required at a minimum. Larger resolution acquisition is mostly for behind the scenes stuff and some specialized projects or even specialized shots that would require it; not because it is required.

In contrast; a movie screen is generally speaking, about the size of your average billboard - a still photographer targeting billboard resolutions will most likely be shooting a film medium format back because digital isn't quite there yet on the larger formats - we're talking resolutions of the proposed larger 64MP of EPIC proportions. The printing format of Billboards doesn't require this; but artifacts at even a 21MP sized image will start to show when blown up to billboard or even building size.

I personally see Red as going in the right direction with the Obsolesence Obsolete theme. It' just that the other video acquisition companies need to start realizing that as well.
 
James Gardiner said:
If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.
Click to expand...

James, you still seem to be missing the point. This is a RAW camera - you need to oversample, it's not a luxury. If you want good 1080P RGB, you need to shoot with a Bayer-filtered sensor that has 70% or so more pixels in order to generate a good 1080P image with a minimal amount of artifacts.

1920 x 1080 is not "all you need" in order to get 1920 x 1080, not with a RAW camera. You need more than 1920 x 1080 if all you want is 1920 x 1080 -- do you get it? If you don't oversample, you can't use as heavy an OLPF to get rid of aliasing because now you are trying to compensate for resolution loss from debayering, so you end up with some ugly artifacts in the final color image.

The only question is whether you would prefer that a 4K or 3K RAW capture be processed into 1080P RGB inside the camera and recorded as 1080P in real time... or done in post later using a possibly better debayering algorithm.

You still seem to be questioning the need to shoot 4K RAW when all you want is an HD image -- if you want a good HD image, then you should at least be shooting 3K RAW. Not to say that you can't get away with 2K or less, but it is not optimal due to debayering artifacts and line resolution.

I'd say that modern 3-CCD 1080P cameras would deliver similar quality to a 3K RAW camera.

Again, your arguments against 4K have to be clarified because you are jumbling up the issues of acquisition resolution, recording resolution, and mastering & release resolution. My suggestion is that you go back through your article and everytime you use the vague term "4K" you change it to be specifically "4K RAW Bayer" to describe camera capture or "4K RGB" to describe some final mastering format, and see if your arguments against the RED shooting 4K RAW mode if you want 1080P still make sense.
 
From Jim's quoted 78% figure, to get a measured 1080p, you'd need 1920/0.78 = 2462 pixels across the sensor. Seems that 3k gives you more than what you need and should look really nice. Can't wait to see it myself.
 
I'm rounding up just to play it safe...

The thing is that with more pixels in the sensor, you can use a better, stronger OLPF to reduce aliasing. Hence why I think the RED has a "smoother" look rather than that sharp edgy look of most HD cameras, many of which seem just as sharp as the RED but not as filmic. RED's "soft but detailed" look is much closer to how 35mm film looks than what many HD cameras deliver.
 
Yes David, I like the un-exaggerated detailed images I've seen from red. It looks natural to me. It seems to me more like my eyes see things. Rounding up should give more than enough room to make for a great looking image. As I said, I can't wait.
 
Albert Armes said:
From Jim's quoted 78% figure, to get a measured 1080p, you'd need 1920/0.78 = 2462 pixels across the sensor. Seems that 3k gives you more than what you need and should look really nice. Can't wait to see it myself.
Click to expand...

70% is a better number to play it safe, IMO. In low light, you might need an even larger downsampling to make it look clean.

I am just speaking generally. Some cameras are better than others in terms of spatial efficiency.
 
James T Mather said:
I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.
Click to expand...

Scarlet is not out yet so you can continue to make money off your Red One. Secondly, every camera eventually will lose value as better options come aboard. I dont see any benefit at all to hold back Scarlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top