Why is Red a revolution is cameras?

[Stephen Williams]

27.5MB/s

Hi Brook,

That number bothers me a little as I usually record a Viper @880 on HDCAM SR. Are any of the demo's on the Red site 27.5MB/s? Just curious.

Stephen

 

[Steve Gibby]

That number bothers me a little as I usually record a Viper @880 on HDCAM SR. Are any of the demo's on the Red site 27.5MB/s? Just curious.

Hi Stephen,

Viper raw data from the CCDs, at 880 MB/s to HDCAM SR, in 1920x1080, 444 is sampled at 12bit and converted to 10 bit log.

On the other hand, RED One RAW output via the High Speed Serial Interface, is 12 bit, and has an unverified data rate, with most guesses around the 400 MB/s range.

RED One REDCODE RAW 4k@24fps has a stated data rate of 27.5 MB/s, and is VBR Wavelet compression at approximately 10:1 compression ratio.

I've seen lots of footage from Viper, so I have a good handle on how it looks. This past November in Los Angeles, I saw RED One RAW acquired footage, and RED One REDCODE RAW footage, acquired at 24fps (27.5 MB/s), sequentially projected on a 35' screen with a Sony 4k projector. I have to say that to my well-trained eye, the RED One RAW and RED One REDCODE RAW footage were indistinguishable from each other - despite the obvious disparity in the data rates and compression at acquisition (REDCODE RAW, 10:1). To my eye both of them looked significantly better than any Viper footage I've ever seen, and as RED has stated, it was absolutely unprocessed footage straight from the sensor (except for decompression).

I think the bottom line on the issue you raised is that comparing acquisition data rates of different cameras is not determinative of how the footage looks when it is compared - in other words, a higher data rate doesn't necessarily equate to better looking footage. It's apparent to my eye, in the 4k footage screening, that RED has really made a breakthrough with the REDCODE compression scheme.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

Was the iPod a revolution or an evolution? Why is Red a revolution?

RED gives you 10x the quality at 1/10th the price. Never before has this happened in the broadcast equipment industry. iPod gave you 1/10th the quality at 10x the price.

 

[Chris Gearhart]

RED gives you 10x the quality at 1/10th the price. Never before has this happened in the broadcast equipment industry. iPod gave you 1/10th the quality at 10x the price.

How very true!

 

[Martin Drew]

Perhaps a little harsh Ralph

iPod was a revolution because it redefined the mp3 player market. It wasn't a revolutionary product in itself, it didn't contain anything that hadn't already been done before, but the iPod did it so well that it appealed to a different market.

RedOne is most significant because it brings top end tools to a different market, ie it is priced with the range of a market which has never had such tool before. I think that may well spark a revolution in the same way cameras like the Canon D30 sparked a revolution in the stills photography market.

M

 

[Milan Nikolic]

If we define revolution in technology like big lip forward for more then one or two generations it is obvious that RED ONE is it. It is revolutionary in resolution (yes there are others in this domain to), in price, in modularity, in upgradeable, in software used as well as in friendliness of and responsiveness of the developing team. All together we are dealing with revolutionary product - no doubts about that.

 

[tj williams]

not the camera but the marketing plan is the revolution:

Avid would let you buy an affordable avid, by eliminating features they could have included but didn't want to devalue the hi end machine. Final cut pro was a revolution, not because it was better than the high end Avid but because they had only one level of product and included all the feature set they could. They sold it relatively cheaply and made money on the accessories.... Mac computers...

Sony/Panasonic/etal would let you buy an inexpensive camera but they made it available by eliminating features so as not to devalue the expensive cameras. RED is ONE camera. They have included all the features they possibly could. They have no higher end line of cameras to protect.

Camera mfg.s have also traditionally updated their cameras incrementally. Even though the technology exists to make a better camera at the high end they bring the technology in stages to increase obsolescence. RED is trying to make their camera updatable/software dependent/modular. They are not trying to make, you trade in next year for a new model.

The money in making the RED camera will be in the accessorys, hardware and software updates, and related workflow products. The camera is cheap for the feature set, because they want to obtain a large installed base for this purpose. This is a proven path in the software industry. It's better for the mfg. than planned obsolescence, since at each upgrade stage the option of switching manufacturers ie Sony to Panasonic, is less attractive.

 

[Phil Becque]

I've seen lots of footage from Viper, so I have a good handle on how it looks. This past November in Los Angeles, I saw RED One RAW acquired footage, and RED One REDCODE RAW footage, acquired at 24fps (27.5 MB/s), sequentially projected on a 35' screen with a Sony 4k projector. I have to say that to my well-trained eye, the RED One RAW and RED One REDCODE RAW footage were indistinguishable from each other - despite the obvious disparity in the data rates and compression at acquisition (REDCODE RAW, 10:1). To my eye both of them looked significantly better than any Viper footage I've ever seen, and as RED has stated, it was absolutely unprocessed footage straight from the sensor (except for decompression).

I think the bottom line on the issue you raised is that comparing acquisition data rates of different cameras is not determinative of how the footage looks when it is compared - in other words, a higher data rate doesn't necessarily equate to better looking footage. It's apparent to my eye, in the 4k footage screening, that RED has really made a breakthrough with the REDCODE compression scheme.

Ahh - that's great to hear from you Gibby!
I have no idea what a Viper is - I just know I want something better!

All the best, Phil

 

[Roxco]

marketing plan is the revolution:

marketing plan is the revolution:

not the camera but the marketing plan is the revolution:

Avid would let you buy an affordable avid, by eliminating features they could have included but didn't want to devalue the hi end machine. Final cut pro was a revolution, not because it was better than the high end Avid but because they had only one level of product and included all the feature set they could. They sold it relatively cheaply and made money on the accessories.... Mac computers...

FCP rode on the back of DV/FireWire which was IMHO the real revolution (perfect copies-TC-DeckControl-48kAudio) and the interface was mature because Randy Ubillos had already done Premiere. People were looking for a decent NLE to work with FireWire and Apple/ProMax had it working first and best.

Sony/Panasonic/etal would let you buy an inexpensive camera but they made it available by eliminating features so as not to devalue the expensive cameras. RED is ONE camera. They have included all the features they possibly could. They have no higher end line of cameras to protect.

This is what excites me about RED in the short term. Like the VX-1000 which had digital features that were leveraged early so that it grew into a pro tool, the RedOne will find many more uses than even this forum can conceive of and I'm sure there are many tech nuts here who can think of a hundred uses already. The guys at TWIM keep dreaming about the RedOne out loud - http://www.twit.tv/twim

Camera mfg.s have also traditionally updated their cameras incrementally. Even though the technology exists to make a better camera at the high end they bring the technology in stages to increase obsolescence. RED is trying to make their camera updatable/software dependent/modular. They are not trying to make, you trade in next year for a new model.

Would you say this is following a Pro Still Camera marketing model? I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories - I just think their size often limits their innovation. I've used great software developed by one or two people, but a physical camera system is a much more complicated venture.

The money in making the RED camera will be in the accessorys, hardware and software updates, and related workflow products. The camera is cheap for the feature set, because they want to obtain a large installed base for this purpose. This is a proven path in the software industry. It's better for the mfg. than planned obsolescence, since at each upgrade stage the option of switching manufacturers ie Sony to Panasonic, is less attractive.

So RedOne is a truck and not a sports car? It is its utility that will keep it around and not it's flashy design and performance? I like to go to the auto show and sit in the Porsche, but I drive a 4WD truck in case the other guy's Porsche run's the light.

And finally I do believe that opening up about RedOne development is a great marketing and motivating idea. Even the perception of listening to the costumers is important, but I trust that they will make wise choices based on their own experiences and a few chosen experts. In the early days of FireWire, the forums were a great place to market innovations and discuss feature requests. Being open allowed people to take risks on gear (DV vs. Betacam?) before the consensus and support was in place. Canon (who had no high-end video gear? - hmm...) rose to the challenge after the VX-1000 and brought us some really great cameras.

Thanks for reading and such thoughtful comments all,

Rosco

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Hi Brook,

That number bothers me a little as I usually record a Viper @880 on HDCAM SR. Are any of the demo's on the Red site 27.5MB/s? Just curious.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

HDCAM SR 4:4:4 codec is 880 Mega bits per second, which is around half of the uncompressed 1920x1080 images

4k (4096x 2304) 12 bit depth Uncompressed RAW is 2718 Mega bits second @24fps (don't forget RAW is a one channel format so it weight a third of the RGB)

REDCODE codec has been said to be compressed (wavelet) around 10 times, so it should be around 270 Mega bits per second (or 33,75 Mega Bytes per second), but it has also been said that it will be around 27,5 Mega Bytes per second @ 24fps, which was confirm by RED team that also said 1 hour of footage will take around 100 Giga Bytes.
REDCODE RAW has been described by the RED team to be really a clever compression, and also that the RAW format allows for better compression than the RGB.

And yes the "Milk Girl" video on the RED web site is from an early REDCODE.

antoine.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

About the "revolution", for me it is still an upcoming revolution, what I mean is that the revolution has not yet appeared, but if the real camera will offer what is written on paper (and a lot also on web pages it could be called "revolution" in the sens that:
In the eNewsletter from Digital Cinema Society it is written:
"Fifteen hundred RED One cameras coming to market compares with ony about 100 Vipers, 70 Genesis, and maybe a couple of dozen Dalsa Origin and Arri D20s currently out there; so who are these guys ordering so many new high end cameras?"

So that means to me that a lot of folks are going to produce high quality (at least better than before, technicaly speaking) content, and also because of REDCODE they will be able to handle 4k production and still have very high quality images.

The camera body might not be all you need to produce content, be the high end camera such as RED I and RED lens (because of his price, design modularity, features, codec, accessory, etc..) could push out the use of camera such as digi beta, HDV, HVX, XDCAM, VariCam, HDCAM, as well as 16mm film and some prod done on 35mm film, at least for cinema syle crew. It might not affect the very high end production, but a lot of less important ones.

My 2 cents,
antoine.

 

[Stephen Williams]

HDCAM SR 4:4:4 codec is 880 Mega bits per second, which is around half of the uncompressed 1920x1080 images

4k (4096x 2304) 12 bit depth Uncompressed RAW is 2718 Mega bits second @24fps (don't forget RAW is a one channel format so it weight a third of the RGB)

REDCODE codec has been said to be compressed (wavelet) around 10 times, so it should be around 270 Mega bits per second (or 33,75 Mega Bytes per second),

antoine.

Hi Antoine,

Thank you for that explanation. So it should be quite possible to record uncompressed then?

Stephen

 

[Brook Willard]

Yes, it is possible to record Uncompressed RAW from the RED ONE. You should expect approximately 350MB/s [that's megabyte] for 4.5K uncompressed RAW at 24fps. In order to record uncompressed RAW, you need to use an external RED-RAID tethered to the camera by means of the Optical RAW Data port. Specifications for the RED-RAID ["fridge" RAID] have not been released.

One will not receive the optical RAW data port interface with the $17,500 price. The RAW data port interface and the RED-RAID will be separate additional purchases. Ship dates have not been announced.

Everything is subject to change.


[Stephen, I can't tell if you were asking about the RED or about uncompressed HD...]

 

[Stephen Williams]

[Stephen, I can't tell if you were asking about the RED or about uncompressed HD...]

Hi Brook,

I was thinking of Red uncompressed.

Stephen

 

[Brook Willard]

Did my response answer your question?