The times we love...

[Graeme Nattress]

Adam, please go and tell Sony to shut up about 8k then. I'm just picking at the internal contradictions in their marketing. And it's not so much "me" that says there'll be aliasing in the image - it's basic sampling theorem that says that! As for if it's "horrible" as you put it or not, that's where the measurement and test charts come in. And come on though - the chart is part of the F65 page so if it's not referring to their new camera then what the hell is it doing on that page... It even mentions "As applied in the F65, supersampling and electronic downconverting deliver far higher contrast at high frequencies, for a noticeably sharper picture." below the chart and the red line is labeled "true 4k" which is their F65 marketing term. It is most definitely not "general".

So no, it's not FUD from me - I'm just calling their marketing graphs bollocks. (a word I thought I'd never get to use in a RED User post).

Graeme

 

[David Dennis]

Eric, I think you are overstating Sony's actual position here.

Marc, That’s an awesome post, VERY interesting history, balanced perspective on the current situation.
(snipped)
“Sony has priced the F65 at 65K. It knew the demand of a product giving comparable (don't flame me) benefits being sold at similar prices levels (read 58k).”

Even though the SONY F65 has a price tag of $65k (really, you think that Mo would be $180K++???), I don’t see that individuals would go out and purchase the camera…

It does seem to indicate the influence of RED on forcing SONY to significantly drop their traditional price structure.

(snipped)

So especially with the price structure it’s like SONY turned up in your back yard with an unloaded folded open shot gun in the crook of its arm, with a “shit-eating grin” and said “howdy neighbor”.

$58k is the cost of EPIC-M including all options required to operate the camera, including 512GB of flash memory. I doubt that the $65k Sony price includes any media, or any equivalent to the REDMote or RED touch screen. It probably does include an equivalent to the BOMB EVF and lens mount, so let's add them into the RED price.

If memory serves, EPIC-X's price is about $28k + $2k for the titanium lens mount + $3.2k for the BOMB EVF = $33.2k. So the RED package is about half the cost of the Sony.

Furthermore, the Sony looks enormous and extremely heavy and likely to be useless for anything but classic filmmaking, where everything is precisely planned in advance and the camera is moved mechanically as opposed to handheld. You can shoot anything from classic cinema to wildlife documentaries on EPIC.

In short, I don't think Sony's pricing is all that aggressive and I strongly suspect Jim is laughing all the way to the bank. Having a 4K Sony camera means that it will be easier going forward to convince people to shoot digital instead of film. That's what he's really after, because once people decide on digital, and consider the differences between cameras, he's going to win.

As a result, the bottom line Eric suggests is correct: No individual in his right mind would buy the Sony, while plenty of individuals have and will buy EPICs.

D

 

[Eric Lange]

I still think you're trying to pull out scientific data from a none scientific chart for no other reason than to try to say is lying to the public. They aren't saying that chart was created from measurement taken from the F65! It is a general format demonstration not a chart made from measurements taken from any specific camera systems, read the labels.

The whole "true 4k" thing goes back to how some companies define what a pixel is. Some companies/engineers say a pixel is made of a sample from atleast one Green, Blue and Red photosite while others say a photosite is a pixel. I'm glad you said the blue and red channels won't measure 4k. Do you think they'll measure around 3.2k instead? So what would the red and blue channels of a camera measure that has half the number of pixels in those channels measure?

You're going back and forth on us here too, trying to say their technical side doesn't add up and that is the more important thing and they're lying etc etc. Then you say the technical stuff doesn't matter as much as how the overall image looks. Those are two different schools of thought and it's difficult to have a productive conversion when you keep changing the importance of each subject. You can't go saying the F65 is going to have horrible aliasing problems when you've never seen a resolution test chart/graph made from a real test it or tested it yourself.

You and others at Red have complained to high heaven about how people come on this forum and spread FUD about your camera systems and now here you are doing the same exact thing about another companies camera system. Don't turn this into a "well they did it so we can do it" or a "they started it," either, grow up guys. Stop making so many assumptions from charts and literature made by marketing people who are not engineers. When you're able to get your hands on an F65 and do your own tests and publish those then we might be able to have a productive conversation but until then it's nothing but FUD.

This one was really done to death over a year ago when SONY first announced the Q67. If you saw the presentations you would know what is meant (maybe you did). The whole 100% green thing was very misleading to begin with and deliberately designed to mis-lead. The problem is (as stated earlier) if for example that the de-Bayer they use is very similar to a RED approach on a diagonal slant (that’s as far as can be said) then they have to (from a marketing point of view) distance themselves as much as possible from that possible reality. This is exactly what they seek to do.

I actually pride myself on being very neutral about the technology and the companies (including RED). To be honest the SONY system is probably more suitable (in terms of our global shutter requirement) than the RED systems (we have a very unusual requirement and application). So I am pretty far away from being what anyone would describe as a RED “fan-boy”. If you read all of the relevant patent literature that also pertains to the diagonally arranged photo-sites and various strategies for de-mosaicing then you can actually get a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of different physical arrangements. So I underscored (in the previous posts) the fact that the SONY arrangement of photo-sites does have some advantages for certain applications that other more standard arrangements do not necessarily provide. Unfortunatley supposed resolution is NOT one of the strengths and they don't even mention the other real strengths of the technology.

If you read for example “Modulation Transfer Function in Optical and Electro-Optical Systems” by Glenn D. Boreman (SPIE Press…ISBN 0-8194-4143-0) I think a good reference, then you will see how Graeme marked up the diagram is actually valid for the point and behavior that needed to be illustrated.

As for the seeming contradiction of Graeme saying the image looks “nice”, one just needs to look at it; I have picked him up on that in the past on several occasions. It usually boils down to the complexity of the algorithms that Red uses, that one is not really supposed to go into great detail about. The reason being is that the lower level “machinations” do not provide a useful or accessible explanation as to why the images look better. Jim has published (stunning) MTFs in the past for the complete optical and electronic path, but even then that can only tell you so much.

Years ago I mentioned to Jim (on REDUSER) about the need for an (electronic) global shutter; he said early on that because film uses an actual rotating shutter you get a natural skew. Jim said that he did not like the sterile look of the global shutter as it is not film like. I would 100% concur with that, electronic global shutters do look very sterile by comparison. I thought Graeme was very generous saying that the impression of the image was very RED like circa 4 years ago; (that’s actually quite a compliment). Having studied the technology that the zig zag arrangement is based on I would have actually expected the SONY camera to have more of a “broadcast” look than let’s say film or REDONE. My technical suppositions are much more negative than Graem’s based on my understanding of the architecture, processing pipeline and intended use. Graeme hasn’t made such statements (only me).

So Adam I do know where you are coming from, but I have to admit for me when someone tries to pull the wool over my eyes, (deliberately) this is a red flag (no pun intended) to a bull. This is a human failing that I have…it really winds me up when things are deliberately presented in such a misleading fashion. The more naive amongst us might maintain that oh… the MTFs will tell the truth. The reality is that even when all the MTFs are published, it’s the marketing hype and spin that will stick in at least 50% of purchaser’s minds. In the other 50% it’s what the images look like (exactly what Graeme) is saying. Less than 1% will actually use the MTFs etc. as a metric for making a purchase decision ( I promise you).

Basically score 1 for the marketing department and 0 for the human race. I don’t think that is a good thing…to me this really underscores a lot of what is wrong with the world today… (maybe you think that this is tolerable? (I really don’t).

I’m not a fan boy but I don’t think there was a single occasion that RED ever sought to pull the wool over someone’s eyes (ever).

That’s my 2 cents.

 

[Eric Lange]

Eric, I think you are overstating Sony's actual position here.



$58k is the cost of EPIC-M including all options required to operate the camera, including 512GB of flash memory. I doubt that the $65k Sony price includes any media, or any equivalent to the REDMote or RED touch screen. It probably does include an equivalent to the BOMB EVF and lens mount, so let's add them into the RED price.

If memory serves, EPIC-X's price is about $28k + $2k for the titanium lens mount + $3.2k for the BOMB EVF = $33.2k. So the RED package is about half the cost of the Sony.

Furthermore, the Sony looks enormous and extremely heavy and likely to be useless for anything but classic filmmaking, where everything is precisely planned in advance and the camera is moved mechanically as opposed to handheld. You can shoot anything from classic cinema to wildlife documentaries on EPIC.

In short, I don't think Sony's pricing is all that aggressive and I strongly suspect Jim is laughing all the way to the bank. Having a 4K Sony camera means that it will be easier going forward to convince people to shoot digital instead of film. That's what he's really after, because once people decide on digital, and consider the differences between cameras, he's going to win.

As a result, the bottom line Eric suggests is correct: No individual in his right mind would buy the Sony, while plenty of individuals have and will buy EPICs.

D

Thanks for that I did not fully realise there was such a large price difference from the M to the X. Good to know thanks for the correction.. (that's happy but late news to me…geeze seriously (better sign up... shit…(asleep at the wheel again!!!).

 

[Adam S]

Getting a little sensitive that Red isn't the one who has the biggest K count on their camera anymore, huh? If Sony should stop saying 8k then you guys should stop saying Epic is 5k and the R1 is 4k, or 4.5k, whatever. Because when they say 8k, which is only used once on that page, they are using your guy's re-definition of how to determine how many K's a camera has.

Unless the chart is labeled MTF measurements taken from an F65 you cannot assume that is what the chart is talking about. Sony is trying to educate people about the benefits of higher resolutions and how they compare to previous generations of camera format specs. That is why the chart has the footnote of "As applied in the F65" they are not saying this is what you get from the F65. They are saying this is the technical approach we are using in the F65 so you will see similar comparable results when you do measure the camera. I think you're coming to terms with that is what the literature is saying...

You're an engineer looking for exact results from the camera in their current literature. That might be what you want them to do, but guess what that's not what they are doing. Most camera manufacturers don't show the actual results of the test charts they themselves have done before the camera actually ships and has been tested by 3rd parties to collaborate the results.

Bollocks is a fun word, you should use it more often.

 

[Eric Lange]

Adam, please go and tell Sony to shut up about 8k then. ...

So no, it's not FUD from me - I'm just calling their marketing graphs bollocks. (a word I thought I'd never get to use in a RED User post).

Graeme

I'm sorry that is (very) funny, some of the guys years ago at SONY HD did actually have a sense of humor…

I not sure if bollocks really covers it, more like “total bollocks”. (seriously there’s not much left…)

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Adam S]

I have to admit for me when someone tries to pull the wool over my eyes, (deliberately) this is a red flag (no pun intended) to a bull. This is human failing that I have…it really winds me up when things are deliberately presented in such a misleading fashion. The more naive amongst us might maintain that oh… the MTFs will tell the truth. The reality is that even when all the MTFs are published, it’s the marketing hype and spin that will stick in at least 50% of purchaser’s minds. In the other 50% it’s what the images look like (exactly what Graeme) is saying. Less than 1% will actually use the MTFs etc. as a metric for making a purchase decision ( I promise you).

If you're smart enough to understand MTF and how that affects images and why you should care about it, then you should be smart enough to understand when a manufacturer is using general test results and not specific test results from specific cameras.

 

[David Dennis]

Thanks for that I did not fully realise there was such a large price difference forn the M to the X. Good to know thanks for the correction.. (that's happy but late news to me…geeze seriously (better sign up... shit…(asleep at the wheel again!!!).

Anytime

The M to X difference isn't that large - it's the very generous bundle of included accessories in the M kit that confused you. You can buy an EPIC-M body only for $39.5k. So the current difference between M and X is actually about $10k or so.

Interestingly enough, after the January 1, 2012 price increase, the difference between EPIC-M and X is very low - $39,500 for M and $36,500 for the X (including the titanium mount). If we stick with X (certainly there are no hand-made Sony cams!), adding the BOMB EVF will give us an under $40k camera. So the even after our sizable price increase, the Sony camera is still about more than 50% more expensive, which makes its pricing look far from aggressive.

This does mean that EPIC-X is insanely cheap right now. Wish I could afford one .

The only saving grace for Sony is that big companies often like to buy products from big companies. People who are really passionate about their cameras will definitely choose RED.

D

 

[M Most]

$58k is the cost of EPIC-M including all options required to operate the camera, including 512GB of flash memory. I doubt that the $65k Sony price includes any media, or any equivalent to the REDMote or RED touch screen. It probably does include an equivalent to the BOMB EVF and lens mount, so let's add them into the RED price.

If memory serves, EPIC-X's price is about $28k + $2k for the titanium lens mount + $3.2k for the BOMB EVF = $33.2k. So the RED package is about half the cost of the Sony.

The F65 base package is set at $68K. That includes the body, the viewfinder, and the recorder. For the first 6 months, ther is also an $85K package available that also includes the mechanical shutter, the media transfer station, and one 1 TB memory card. As for wireless remote, Sony is using existing wireless devices for that, which will include iOS devices (the iPad app has already been shown) and Android devices (Sony is making an Android tablet). The camera itself is already wifi enabled.

Furthermore, the Sony looks enormous and extremely heavy and likely to be useless for anything but classic filmmaking, where everything is precisely planned in advance and the camera is moved mechanically as opposed to handheld.

Sony has already said that they plan to have a T-head version of the F65 for such use. But yes, the basic F65, at least in it's first version, is more like a film camera than an Epic. That is by design, not by accident.

In short, I don't think Sony's pricing is all that aggressive and I strongly suspect Jim is laughing all the way to the bank. Having a 4K Sony camera means that it will be easier going forward to convince people to shoot digital instead of film. That's what he's really after, because once people decide on digital, and consider the differences between cameras, he's going to win.

The pricing is very aggressive for any camera manufacturer other than Red. The F65 pricing is clearly in Alexa territory, and very obviously so. Regardless of what Red users think, the Alexa has been very, very successful in its market at that price point. That is where Sony wants to compete.

As a result, the bottom line Eric suggests is correct: No individual in his right mind would buy the Sony, while plenty of individuals have and will buy EPICs.

I think a lot of individuals, all of whom will be in their right mind, will buy F65s, just as a lot of individuals have bought Digital Betacams, HDCams, and lots of other professional cameras over the years and made money with them. And just as a lot of individuals have bought Alexas and are making money with them. All of these products have their own strengths and appeal. The Epic is a great product. So is the Alexa. So will be the F65. As Jim has said, albeit with a slightly different slant, these are the times we like.

 

[Andy White]

For the F65, the camera body & EVF are $65K and it looks like the (presume it's required as per the HDCamSR backend on other CineAltas) SRR4 SR memory recorder is another $20K - plus cost of media etc. So wonder how much the basic $85K will increase with other add-ons... as I can't see any media price yet (but they look like SSD's).

The $65K bit seems to be grabbing more headlines... as it puts it close to the Epic-M $58K package. But, IMO, there's a lot more that's included with the Epic-M.

Plus there are also unknown costs on the DIT station side for the F65 (as teh single drive interface will, no doubt be expensive) and teh X4 slot VTR/Memory recorder system will no doubt be even more (knowing Sony).

Just stepping back and looking at it from a system agnostic perspective

 

[Eric Lange]

If you're smart enough to understand MTF and how that affects images and why you should care about it, then you should be smart enough to understand when a manufacturer is using general test results and not specific test results from specific cameras.

If you read through etc. I don’t actually have a beef about the printed graph-like (graphiness) of the presented curves.

My beef in particular was with the Q67 presentation, and the fact that they are still saying things like and showing diagrams for “twice as many RGB pixels as 4k Bayer” and the like, and of course this feeds directly into the idea that this is an 8k instrument (somehow)…that’s a VERY different idea.. That is super misleading and it’s deliberately designed to be. This is not innocent (this is not a random happenstance in the marketing department and they are all casually innumerate idiots (not...)). As I said before this one was absolutely done to death over a year ago and moved to off topic. Maybe I’ll try and dig it up if it still exists, then you can read and trawl through the whole (blinking thing) and then see what you think? (after that).

With best regards,

Eric

 

[Jannard]

The F65 is a great release for Sony. No question about it. The marketing is a bit suspect but... oh, well. People will test and see what it actually can do... which will be good.

We like anyone who steps up and provides deliverable 4K resolution. Sony is a bit late to the party but better now than never.

Jim

 

[M Most]

Plus there are also unknown costs on the DIT station side for the F65 (as teh single drive interface will, no doubt be expensive) and teh X4 slot VTR/Memory recorder system will no doubt be even more (knowing Sony).

The transfer station (the drive interface you're talking about) is $7500 and has an ESATA interface (possibly others as well, but that wasn't really discussed, although it wouldn't shock me to see Thunderbolt as well by the time it ships). That is for the standalone unit, but Sony indicated that there will likely be a smaller, internally mountable drive as well.

 

[Adam S]

My beef in particular was with the Q67 presentation, and the fact that they are still saying things like and showing diagrams for “twice as many RGB pixels as 4k Bayer” and the like, and of course this feeds directly into the idea that this is an 8k instrument…that’s a VERY different idea.. That is super misleading and it’s deliberately designed to be. This is not innocent (this is not a random happenstance in the marketing department and they are all casually innumerate idiots (not...)). As I said before this one was absolutely done to death over a year ago and moved to off topic. Maybe I’ll try and dig it up if it still exists, then you can read and trawl through the whole (blinking thing) and the see what you think? (after that).

Ya I found that whole thing to be rather confusing, not so much misleading though. I knew what they were trying to say like when they used the 16:8:8 term. But it wasn't the best way of doing it especially when they were using non-standard terms, like 16:8:8, while trying to talk about a tech heavy subject matter.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Adam, I assume with your use of the word bollocks you're from the UK also? It's a wonderful word and indeed, I may just begin to use it more frequently

Graeme

 

[Andy White]

The transfer station (the drive interface you're talking about) is $7500 and has an ESATA interface (possibly others as well, but that wasn't really discussed, although it wouldn't shock me to see Thunderbolt as well by the time it ships). That is for the standalone unit, but Sony indicated that there will likely be a smaller, internally mountable drive as well.

Not cheap then... but comparable in price range to the whole system cost. Any idea on the SSD's price range?

My only beef is the F65 headline grabbing $65K price... it would be more favourable to compare with an Epic-M & EVF or Epic-X & EVF... but hey, I don't think $85K (plus cost of SSD's to come) vs $58K would have caught the same headlines.

It looks like we have interesting times ahead... thankfully, Jim's long held belief that 1080 is not good enough (sorry if it''s not the correct quote Jim... but you know what I mean!) is holding true beyond the walls of Red now... so the industry marches on into higher res acquisition - where Sony goes, Panasonic will follow... and who knows who else!

My view is that Epic (M or X) is still the more affordable option... but, that's just my opinion.

 

[Andy White]

Adam, I assume with your use of the word bollocks you're from the UK also? It's a wonderful word and indeed, I may just begin to use it more frequently

Graeme

UK here too... love the term... bollocks for rubbish & the dog's bollocks for something brilliant... ie my "5DMKII moires like hell - it's bollocks!" vs 'The Epic M is 5K - it's the dog's bollocks!".

Now... the only question I have to ask is why we British seem to think canine testicles are so good.... err....

I'll sign off now

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well Andy, I'm knackered after all this posting! No doubt "the dog's bollocks" comes from the fact that male dogs seem to think their own bollocks are indeed the best thing in the world....

Graeme

 

[Eric Lange]

The F65 base package is set at $68K.

Sony has already said that they plan to have a T-head version of the F65 for such use. But yes, the basic F65, at least in it's first version, is more like a film camera than an Epic. That is by design, not by accident.

...

The pricing is very aggressive for any camera manufacturer other than Red. The F65 pricing is clearly in Alexa territory, and very obviously so. Regardless of what Red users think, the Alexa has been very, very successful in its market at that price point. That is where Sony wants to compete.

...

I think a lot of individuals, all of whom will be in their right mind, will buy F65s, just as a lot of individuals have bought Digital Betacams, HDCams, and lots of other professional cameras over the years and made money with them. And just as a lot of individuals have bought Alexas and are making money with them. All of these products have their own strengths and appeal. The Epic is a great product. So is the Alexa. So will be the F65. As Jim has said, albeit with a slightly different slant, these are the times we like.

I've heard before that a T-head version of the F65 might be released. Is that something that is likely to be the same price, less or more than a standard "rig"?


Cheers,

Eric

(rig being another "balls" related term in the horse world.)

From Uk too (originally).

 

[David Dennis]

I think a lot of individuals, all of whom will be in their right mind, will buy F65s, just as a lot of individuals have bought Digital Betacams, HDCams, and lots of other professional cameras over the years and made money with them. And just as a lot of individuals have bought Alexas and are making money with them. All of these products have their own strengths and appeal. The Epic is a great product. So is the Alexa. So will be the F65. As Jim has said, albeit with a slightly different slant, these are the times we like.

I suppose in their right mind was a bit too harsh a term.

Still, it seems to me that EPIC's versatility alone would make it a far better choice for owner/operators than dedicated theatrical cameras like F65 and Alexa. You can use EPIC for anything from theatrical productions to run and gun documentaries, depending on how it's set up and where your talents lie. The Alexa/F65 seem to pin you down to a single project style.

But that could be my own biases showing because I'm a run and gun documentarian at heart, and so the F65/Alexa would essentially be useless to me, with their sizable weight and bulk.

What do you see as the advantages of the F65 or Alexa over EPIC?

D