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's battle against Sony -- Jim response succeeding the new Sony's Armada* move

Agreed. RED's RAW workflow is their claim to fame. No doubt about it.

But I can't help but feel there's a big gap in the middle between traditional HD cameras and the REDONE. On one side you have 2/3" 1080p YUV/RGB cameras. On the other side you have a 35mm 4K RAW camera.

If someone like Canon created a 35mm 2k RGB/Log camera with a native DSLR lens mount and an advanced codec at 1/2 to 2/3 the price of a REDONE they'd sell a ton of them. There are a lot of indie filmmakers and event videographers who want the 35mm look but don't want to get into the intricacies of a RAW workflow. Basically, it would be a Baby Genesis or Baby D21. I think there's a market for that.
 
The Big Boys will change when they feel the pinch. It will happen. If not they will be destroyed. Red and others are going to make it happen.:matrix:
 
E.J. Sadler said:
When I read things like this I really have to wonder if these guys have ever actually shot or graded anything.


Between RED and Cannon, I think Panny is the one really feeling the heat.
Click to expand...

"Panny" could blindside everybody with a 4/3 standard format D-cine/still combo cam next year. Check out the reviews on the new Lumix G1 micro 4/3 still camera.
 
Why Canon didn't...

Why Canon didn't...

I've always suspected that the reason Canon did not leverage their sensor and processing technology into a digital cinema style camera is because the "photography" and "video" divisions were totally separate and probably do not talk to each other.

Malcolm Gladwell writes about this in The Tipping Point. When companies get larger than 150 employees, these problems start to arise.

Keep in mind that up to now, "Cinema Camera" was a product that was made in very small quantities (ARRI usually made 1500 of each 35mm camera model over the course of 15 year model run). This used to be a low volume business. Until RED changed everything.*

Why is it that Canon and Nikon were never interested in making a 16mm camera (with the exception of the Canon Scoopic)? They had no trouble making Super 8mm cameras. But they just felt the volume was not there on 16mm.

Once RED ships more than 5000 cameras we can definitely say that things have changed. At that point, the RED ONE will exceed the numbers of the somewhat similarly priced ARRI 16SR 1-2-3 series (5100 were sold in 30 years, they started at about $15k end ended at $50k for the body).

I've personally told Jim how significant I think his achievement is.

---

*This explains the shortage of Zeiss cine lenses. ARRI placed the orders based on how many 35mm cameras they expected to sell, plus a few lens upgrades. Now there are 10x as many "hungry PL mounts" out there...
 
RedOne changed everything, even against the Silicon Imaging SI-2K, Phantom 65, ect.. Does anyone have a timeline and sales chart showing this? Red is only competing with themselves right now, maybe other small companies but not the big ones. The big ones just don't get it or they do but don't want to change until they have no choice!:tongue:
 
Most likely the latter. There is a lot of inertia in big companies. The mentality is "If it ain't broken....". All paradigm shifts come from small, nimble companies with radical ideas.
 
Canon already offered HD 24p for less than a thousand bucks.

Canon is offering 1080p with 35MM DOF with one of their top of the lines DSLR.

Canon didn't make a move against Sony EX1.

Maybe Canon will make a move against Scarlet...
Creating a 2K solid state recording camera that does RAW?

But how much would it cost?
 
imagine hf10/hf11/hg21 with 2/3" senzor instead of current 1/3" one, meaning much less noisy lowlight. Throw in wider lens.

This could cost approx. 500$ more. Easy. I really wonder why no manufacturer done this already. The only answer is they don't feel enough pressure on this oligarchic market with two or three significant players.

Come on Red, change that!
 
Time for a comment from the lunatic fringe.

Time for a comment from the lunatic fringe.

I think everyone is too fixated on pixel numbers and have lost sight of the fact that it's sensor/film/target size that really makes the image. Take a look at well exposed footage shot with a single plane of focus on an HVX and it could pass for 35. As soon as the enormous DoF is exposed it looks like Betacam.

The digital projection standard calls for 2k which is barely larger than 1080. A 1080 camera with a Vistavision sized sensor and good stills glass would kill any 4k camera with a DX sized sensor IMHO. The images from the 5DM2 are stunning because the sensor is so big. The skew is a problem (note no horizontal movement in the Canon video), the 30fps is a problem and the compression may be a problem but the images are gorgeous.

And don't get concerned about how stills lenses don't adapt well to follow focus and iris racking. That's old technology - a guy stands by with a tape measure and a whiteboard marker? P-lease.

All Canon or Nikon (or RED) need to do (aside from banishing the skew) is offer up control over auto focus points to, say, a laptop where software could co-opt the face detection paradigm to virtually rotoscope shots. Just set the focus points during the blocking and then tell it to focus at keyframe 1, keyframe 2 etc. The camera would then dynamically maintain focus despite actors and grips missing marks. Use bezier curves for nice smooth transitions and slow pulls. The technology is all there it just needs to be put together.

Add in the super-high ISO ratings Canon are now using and you could be ramping ISO for varispeed shots rather than iris. Hold that DoF while you change frame rates and do it all from a laptop at pre-programmed settings. Just hit <return> for the next keyframe.

My question over RED is can they compete in the autofocus field against the incumbent DSLR players and can they make 24x36mm sensors? OK, that was two questions:biggrin:
 
So you think Jim should add an "ISO ring" to the DSMC? :)
 
I think lenses really are the key issue for the DSMC. I have a significant investment in Nikon AF lenses so for me the DSMC has to have some significant interface with them to be desirable. I will continue to shoot the Red One and then Epic for cinematography but those will remain S35 sensors and continue to use existing PL mount glass. For the DSMC it's a different story. I think there may even have to be two versions, one in Nikon one in EOS. But can Red even get Nikon and/or Canon to license the AF/VR capabilities to them? If anyone can it's Jim.
 
Evin Grant said:
I think lenses really are the key issue for the DSMC. I have a significant investment in Nikon AF lenses so for me the DSMC has to have some significant interface with them to be desirable. I will continue to shoot the Red One and then Epic for cinematography but those will remain S35 sensors and continue to use existing PL mount glass. For the DSMC it's a different story. I think there may even have to be two versions, one in Nikon one in EOS. But can Red even get Nikon and/or Canon to license the AF/VR capabilities to them? If anyone can it's Jim.
Click to expand...

You would not need a license.

That's to expensive, you have to make millions with lenses like Sigma to make it sense to buy Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc... lens electronic licenses.

For DSMC you would need sort of IMS or just PST IMS to get as many lenses as you can afford.

BTW, I will put Birger's EF or Andy Lesniak's EF mounts on IMS soon.

Somebody should make soon Nikon AF (maybe Birger could do that!?) and I will try out also to put that on IMS.
 
Tom said:
So you think Jim should add an "ISO ring" to the DSMC? :)
Click to expand...

I think it should be controllable via software but, yeah, it should be there and on the Epic too. It's a no-brainer for the software to figure it out - no reason it shouldn't be totally accurate.

Think about it. How many stops do you normally rack in a speed up or slow down? Two? Three? We've seen in Build 16 how stable the image is over a a range of ISOs greater than a couple of stops. I think you'd notice the change less than a DoF change. Of course, sometimes you'd want to rack iris but sometimes you'd rack ISO.

My point in my previous post is that it might just be time to let go of some of the old ways of doing things and truly embrace all that technology can offer us. Come at things from a different angle.
 
bettsy said:
I. Of course, sometimes you'd want to rack iris but sometimes you'd rack ISO.
.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Why not change shutter angle, it's been done like that on film cameras for many years.

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Why not change shutter angle, it's been done like that on film cameras for many years.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Caution Stephen, with digital acquisition and display there are some notions that don't directly transfer from film world to digital world. If the frame rate is matched to line frequency then any shutter angle would suffice in the film world, however, since that role is taken over by exposure time in a typical (rolling shutter) digital camera, the concept moves over at the possible expense of flicker/banding, even if the frame rate is matched.

Additionally, it is easier to not notice the "defects" in a theater projection (could be as out of control of a film director/producer's reach as the variation in the bulb used in theater projector) since visual adaption is solely provided by the film content information. Therefore, once the human eye is adapted to theater conditions a lot of defects in color shifts, exposure, etc., are hidden.

Unfortunately, with the abundance of projection in today's world outside of the well-controlled environment of a theater made possible by digital technology, many defects which otherwise would be undetected in a theater might be visible in digital projection.
 
Evin Grant said:
I think lenses really are the key issue for the DSMC. I have a significant investment in Nikon AF lenses so for me the DSMC has to have some significant interface with them to be desirable. I will continue to shoot the Red One and then Epic for cinematography but those will remain S35 sensors and continue to use existing PL mount glass. For the DSMC it's a different story. I think there may even have to be two versions, one in Nikon one in EOS. But can Red even get Nikon and/or Canon to license the AF/VR capabilities to them? If anyone can it's Jim.
Click to expand...

Well Evin, and since you brought it up, to be compatible with 35mm stills glass, you cannot have a 2/3" or S16 sized sensor. We would never be able to use wide angles. But if they get us a 35mm sensor wouldn't the DSMC be a RED ONE killer?

what a dillema. Thank got it's RED. I guess I'll be happy no matter what they decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top