Red update

[Ralph Oshiro]

JaRED land . . . seems to have gotten the job of viral salesman to the fanboys of RED and glorified Production Assistant to the REd team . . . If I walk into the booth at NAB the person I would most avoid is Land. I don't want the "used car salesman approach" to my questions.

Again, I don't see the source of all this derision. I met Jarred last year at NAB. He's a very nice guy, has a super-nice, hot girlfriend, and throws a hell of a party.

[Carl Brighton]

REDCINE is cross platform, Mac (intel) and Windows PC.

How practical would it be to record on Blu-Ray discs on a high end PC such as one of the new Sony Vaio's? Even if it was a case of real-time on a RAID array and dumping to Blu-Ray between takes, it still could be an economic solution.

 

I would tend to think the most practical post-production model would be more or less off-lining on your own PC and then using someone else's much more expensive installation both to crunch the numbers and output to film or Blu-Ray or whatever.

 

Actually that woudn't be a bad way of controlling potential software piracy: you give people the off-line software cheaply or for free, and then charge by the hour to use the full-power on-line system. That would also mean you could optimize the "grunt" system to only work on really high-end fully loaded systems, which would make it useless to anyone with an ordinary PC.

[Carl Brighton]

For fu**s sake , when are you Red worshippers going to get it , you dont need a 4k digital camera to make movies , look at that awful film "The Blair Witch Project " shot with a couple of empty baked bean tins and a bit of tape running through them . Cost about if i remember about $25,000 , made about $250 million , the audiences loved it . Its story people , please understand it .

Did you know you've been mentioned in dispatches again John? :D

 

My current favourite quote from there:

I've been a loyal customer since my first set of Oakley 2's that I had on my Redline bars on my Supergoose. Now I'm gonna be nervous every time the phone rings...

"Hey, Honey... it's the founder of Oakley on the phone for you!"

Edited March 1, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[John Holland]

Thanks for that Carl , miss quoted me to i didnt actually use the naughty f word, have a dig at David Mullen as well ! I just wont be able to sleep tonight . :D

[Troy Warr]

By the way, will these RED-whatever software packages be available for the PC format, or only MACs. Nattress apparently only makes stuff for MACs. Not totally mission-critical, but it's another complication that nobody has mentioned

It will be available for Mac (not PPC) and Windows XP. I'm not sure about Vista, but I would guess that it will at least eventually be made compatible.

 

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=77394

[Troy Warr]

- There's a 320GB onboard "RedRaid" HDD module (about $1000)

 

Two issues here. First off, there isn't any such thing yet. I'm not normally such a stickler for this sort of syntactical vaporosity, but really - none of this stuff exists yet.

 

But the main objection here is that no device which can be sold for $1000 is capable of recording a 4K picture under any compression regime which would actually resolve 4K worth of information. Rather, I presume they're talking about their Redcode wavelet codec, which at around 27Mbyte/second is presumably how most people will shoot.

 

> The most attractive workflow seems to be "RedCode RAW," which is a proprietary RAW format

 

It's wavelet compressed. It is by its very definition anything but raw.

 

> (VBR wavelet) at 27MB/sec

 

So it's variable bit rate, but it's 27Mbyte/second? Make your mind up.

 

> which works similarly to RAW software that you get with pro digital SLR cameras.

 

> You can tweak the footage contrast, color, etc. to your liking and then export it to a wide variety of formats

> - for example, DVCPRO HD, H.264, DV, even still frame formats like TIFF and Cineon.

 

Does it? Can you? How do you know? Has any of this software been written? Have you used it?

 

> It sounds very similar to a RAW workflow for a digital SLR, which I think was the intention.

 

It is completely and fundamentally different to that - you're compressing the data.

 

The thing does not exist. When it does, talk. Until then...

 

Phil

 

OK, OK, OK, so I should have better qualified my post as "should this camera ever come to exist, these are hypothetical answers to your questions."

 

I assume that Richard was asking questions because he's curious about the "alleged" Red camera and its workflow. I was answering him based on information from the Red website and RedUser.net forum (yes, I'm well aware that it's currently an inaccurate name).

 

- "Redcode RAW" is compressed, yes. That means it's not truly RAW, sure. But if it comes out as described, I think it would be quite an attractive option, compared to 323MB/sec. RAW. You would still get most of the benefits of the RAW format without the huge file size. If you need to shoot VFX footage, you could still shoot uncompressed.

 

- OK, VBR wavelet at an *average* 27MB/sec.

 

- No, I have not used RedCine, and likely never will. But I'm making an educated guess (God forbid) that Graeme Nattress and Jim Jannard aren't interested in ruining their professional reputations by wasting time on Internet fora lying about what they're doing with their time. For that reason, I assume that RedCine is in fact under development, and will likely one day exist in a commercial form, and will likely perform most of the functions that have been described. If you don't come to that same conclusion, fine. We're different.

 

Again, maybe I should have better qualified my statements, but I assumed that it was painfully obvious that I had never used RedCine, nor had anyone else but the Red development team.

 

> It is completely and fundamentally different to that - you're compressing the data.

 

Sure. But an uncompressed RAW format is (or, sorry, "might eventually be") also available if you need it.

 

The thing does not exist. When it does, talk. Until then...

 

Some people are less pessimistic about the project and don't feel that it's a waste of time to discuss the thing as if it may actually come to exist. Why do you get so bent out of shape by that? If you have an issue with Jannard's marketing strategy, continue to take that up with him. The rest of us can brush that aside and make up our own minds about the potential validity of the claims. What's wrong with getting the "facts" straight, taking it all with some healthy skepticism and wanting the project to succeed?

[Keith Mottram]

i have not seen one person add a cost of a viewfinder onto their red 'pacages'. someone else can probably answer this better than me, but if i remember rightly an accuscene would cost more than the camera body- then again i suppose you could always pull focus on your nikon lenses via a flip out lcd...

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

i have not seen one person add a cost of a viewfinder onto their red 'pacages'. someone else can probably answer this better than me, but if i remember rightly an accuscene would cost more than the camera body- then again i suppose you could always pull focus on your nikon lenses via a flip out lcd...

 

Firstly I don´t know how in depth you have interviewed the 1400 + people who hold reservations, but I have seen plenty talking about getting an EVF. (Then there is some who rather want a screen)

 

Secondly, RED has (long ago) announced that they will provide an EVF at the time the camera is released, in line with their camera pricing - at what price, we will know in a few weeks.

[Mitch Gross]

The Accuscene's list price is not quite as high as the Red One camera, but pretty close. A black & white finder could theoretically be considerably less expensive. But it would have to be designed and built, and then how many units would be sold would determine relative pricing.

 

There are only so many sources for manufacture of a viewfinder unless RED decides to do it all themselves, which is that much more work for them to complete in their short timeframe. I think a number of us who have some knowledge but are not officially "in the know" have a pretty good idea where they'd get their viewfinder from. And it won't be a cheap item, although I'm sure it will be an excellent one.

[Cesar Rubio]

- "Redcode RAW" is compressed, yes. That means it's not truly RAW, sure. But if it comes out as described, I think it would be quite an attractive option, compared to 323MB/sec. RAW. You would still get most of the benefits of the RAW format without the huge file size. If you need to shoot VFX footage, you could still shoot uncompressed.

 

- OK, VBR wavelet at an *average* 27MB/sec.

 

- No, I have not used RedCine, and likely never will. But I'm making an educated guess (God forbid) that Graeme Nattress and Jim Jannard aren't interested in ruining their professional reputations by wasting time on Internet fora lying about what they're doing with their time. For that reason, I assume that RedCine is in fact under development, and will likely one day exist in a commercial form, and will likely perform most of the functions that have been described. If you don't come to that same conclusion, fine. We're different.

 

Again, maybe I should have better qualified my statements, but I assumed that it was painfully obvious that I had never used RedCine, nor had anyone else but the Red development team.

 

> It is completely and fundamentally different to that - you're compressing the data.

 

Sure. But an uncompressed RAW format is (or, sorry, "might eventually be") also available if you need it.

 

I own a Nikon D70s camera, and Nikon approach (as others like Canon) when dealing with RAW is a compressed form of it. Nikon calls it Compressed NEF. I would guess that the compression ratio is about 1/3 of the uncompressed file, but I could be wrong (On the D70 is 5MB each 6MP file).

 

And let me tell you something, I love those Nef files! The only thing that stopped me from buying the Fuji S3 camera 3 years ago, was the 25 MB file size for their RAW format in "Wide" Dynamic Range.

 

Even though I like the New Fuji S5 even more than the S3, I wont buy it anyways because they haven't approached this issue yet. (I suggested them in another forum before, to take Nikon or Canon approach for Compressed Raw)

 

I actually have suggested a similar approach for Machine Vision Cameras, especially when recording uncompressed Raw 1080p Video...it takes a LOT of HD space.

 

720p uncompressed Raw Video is still manageable, that is why I prefer it over 1080p for now.

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

 

PD. Congratulations Troy! you seem to make your "homework" all the time. If one day my company grows, I would like to have people like you on my side....Oh no, did I say it out loud? Probably JJ will hire you before! ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Nikon calls it Compressed

 

Exactly - they're not calling it raw.

 

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of chicanery that makes producers nervous and uncooperative. Is it raw? Sort of? Yes? No? So how is -that- raw different to -this- raw, etc.

 

Nightmare.

 

As I said to someone last year on a fairly large feature, I have an almost pathological disregard for commercially-motivated terminology mangling. It is absolutely never a good idea - and I turned out to be right then.

 

Phil

[Patrizio De Sica]

Ah Ah Ah Holland (his name is) John Holland,

 

It seems you are a big famous name at red user :ph34r: :

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...746&page=15

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.ph...746&page=16

 

:lol:

[Cesar Rubio]

Hi,

 

> Nikon calls it Compressed

 

Exactly - they're not calling it raw.

 

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of chicanery that makes producers nervous and uncooperative. Is it raw? Sort of? Yes? No? So how is -that- raw different to -this- raw, etc.

 

Nightmare.

 

As I said to someone last year on a fairly large feature, I have an almost pathological disregard for commercially-motivated terminology mangling. It is absolutely never a good idea - and I turned out to be right then.

 

Phil

 

Phil:

 

I understand your discomfort with all this confusing Raw situation. Also the uncooperative and nervous state of mind of some producers.

 

On the Digital Still Photography world, with each camera manufacturer having its proprietary Raw format, it is a headache. Many people have complained that: what is going to happen if in the future someone wants to open a Raw file from a defunct company?...or if even future OS will include support for current proprietary Raw softwares.

 

Adobe has approached a "good for all" solution with is DNG (Adobe Digital Format):

 

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

 

But with all the rivalry and no cooperativeness of some manufactures, I don't know if they will ever going to accomplish this noble goal.

 

At least we can convert our Raw files to DNG, but I don't know how much quality is lost in the "translation". And besides the time required to do it, is an extra load for an already busy and time consuming work flow.

 

The Digital Cinema Raw formats are starting top appear, like Cineform, the Red Code, Sculptor HD (for Andromeda system) etc.

 

Each manufacturer according to their needs, chose a compression ratio and capabilities of their raw formats.

 

I like to work with uncompressed Raw, which is untouched by any codec or manufacturer. But like I've said before, up to 720p Raw video. For 1080p, 2k & 4k, a system of Raw compression is almost a must.

 

Here is a Hard Drive space list, that you need to record 1 minute of uncompressed Raw video with different resolutions at 8-bit and 30 fps.

 

720p= 1.6GB

 

1080p= 3.6GB

 

2K= around 4GB

 

4K= around 16GB!

 

 

Also the bandwidth necessary for Camera-PC connection is has to be taken into consideration, as well as HD speed, but the latest can be adjusted with Raid Systems.

 

I love Raw files because you can "play" with different looks of your final video in post, with out "touching" the original Raw file.

 

Color Space, saturation, hue, white balance, sharpness etc. are among others, changes that you can make in post. In short, Raw files are the equivalent of original Negatives for the Film Industry!

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Cesar Rubio

[Ken Cangi]

Ah Ah Ah Holland (his name is) John Holland,

 

It seems you are a big famous name at red user :ph34r: :

 

I just read some of the posts in that forum. They sounded like the rabid rantings of a cult. Could the poster have taken Holland's comment any more out of context? Crow will definitely be le repas de jour if this camera falls on its face.

[Cesar Rubio]

Hi,

 

> Nikon calls it Compressed

 

Exactly - they're not calling it raw.

 

Phil:

 

Nikon calls their Raw format, NEF (Nikon Electronic Format) They have different compression percentages in the many NEF's variations.

 

Here is an interesting article about this issue: (BTW Canon call its Raw format files CRW)

 

http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Can't we just all get a life and recognise this is just a simple piece of hardware! It will neither be "THE BIGGEST REVOLUTION EVER" nor does it seems to be the bastard child of the biggest scam ever!

 

Now you've got it!

[Guest]

I just read some of the posts in that forum. They sounded like the rabid rantings of a cult. Could the poster have taken Holland's comment any more out of context? Crow will definitely be le repas de jour if this camera falls on its face.

 

John Holland may be the most infamous Cinematgraphy.com member on the reduser.net forum.

 

But I think I'm still the most bashed and hated at the DVX user forum, even JJ got into the act, that was very prestigous! Do a search for my name on the DVX user forum, one guy even called me a "F-stick." That was hilarious!!

 

It's quite comical to see how they quote us over there, the "Red Cult", analogy is right on the money.

 

Now I have to go and pray to my Alter To The Gods Of 35mm, and offer some HD tape as a burnt offering.

 

R,

[Chris Kenny]

I never said or implied that. I am making no demands of RED. The people who can afford that sort of workflow can already afford to shoot Genesis or 35.

 

The people who can afford today's uncompressed 4K workflows, yes, probably. But we're seeing the emergence of compressed 4K workflows that are much more manageable. An offline edit and a 4K conform should be possible on a decent (say, $4000) workstation.

 

Keep in mind, 4K is only a little over four times as many pixels as 1080p. Computers have gotten more than four times as fast since the days when people started editing 1080p on them. And RED is writing QuickTime components that will get their footage (even their RAW footage) into a large number of desktop applications right away.

 

The days of high-priced specialty systems in post production are numbered. Ten years from now, they'll probably seem as odd as they now do in the desktop publishing industry (where most designers in their 20s aren't even aware there used to be specialty hardware).

 

The thing is, everyone seems to talk like this is a poor man's cinema camera capable of shooting 4k (i'm going to catch flak for the "poor man's" bit, but it's a figure of speech) but most people can't Post 4k. If they are shooting 720, there are a lot of options ALREADY AVAILABLE. Where is the Indie revolution in that?

 

I'd guess a common early pattern with RED will be shooting 4K REDCODE RAW, and processing through REDCINE to a manageable 1080p format, and finishing in that. Given that 4K projectors are still pretty thin on the ground, this should be fine even for theatrical release for the next couple of years.

 

4:4:4 1080p originated from a sensor the size of a 35mm film frame is a pretty big step above 4:2:2 720p from a 1/3" or even 2/3" sensor. Wavelet compression should also introduce much less objectionable artifacts than DCT compression algorithms like DVCPRO HD.

[Ralph Oshiro]

It's quite comical to see how they quote us over there, the "Red Cult", analogy is right on the money.

You guys are funny. Why do you even bother to read the threads at REDUSER? Why do you even post in this thread? Your constant name-calling and RED-bashing is reminiscent of a grade-school brawl. Make that kindergarten. Sure, many RED fans are young filmmakers with big dreams. Some are experienced professionals. I don't see anything productive in such childish behavior.

[Cesar Rubio]

Here is a Hard Drive space list, that you need to record 1 minute of uncompressed Raw video with different resolutions at 8-bit and 30 fps.

 

720p= 1.6GB

 

1080p= 3.6GB

 

2K= around 4GB

 

4K= around 16GB!

Also the bandwidth necessary for Camera-PC connection is has to be taken into consideration, as well as HD speed, but the latest can be adjusted with Raid Systems.

 

I forgot to mention that if you want to work with 10,12,14 or 16 Bit, please double the Bytes needed in HD space.

 

So for 720p uncompressed Raw 10-16 bit at 30 fps, you need 3.2GB/min of HD space!

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Cesar Rubio

[Chris Kenny]

This sort of thing is exactly the sort of chicanery that makes producers nervous and uncooperative. Is it raw? Sort of? Yes? No? So how is -that- raw different to -this- raw, etc.

 

If it's not debayered, I'd say it can be validly called 'RAW'.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I just read some of the posts in that forum. They sounded like the rabid rantings of a cult. Could the poster have taken Holland's comment any more out of context? Crow will definitely be le repas de jour if this camera falls on its face.

The comment was out of context even in its original thread. It happens in every camera-specific thread. Once engaged in a tech-centric thread, someone always has to point out that "story" is king. Kudos for pointing out the off-topic, and the obvious. Edited March 2, 2007 by Ralph Oshiro

[Patrizio De Sica]

Could the poster have taken Holland's comment any more out of context?

 

What poster? There are several of them...

 

Holland is truly infamous. He's top one, he beats you now, Richard! :P

Edited March 2, 2007 by Patrizio De Sica

[Phil Rhodes]

It's not "bashing". It's just surprise.

 

We're surprised that they can do what they say they can do in the time they've had, surprised that they don't care to prove some of their claims (which is their lookout, of course, but it invites this sort of concern), surprised that people are so unfailingly uncritical.

 

If it comes out and it's great, fine, but what's less valid is constantly talking the thing up when it doesn't exist yet.

 

Phil

[Patrizio De Sica]

John Holland may be the most infamous Cinematgraphy.com member on the reduser.net forum.

 

But I think I'm still the most bashed and hated at the DVX user forum, even JJ got into the act, that was very prestigous! Do a search for my name on the DVX user forum, one guy even called me a "F-stick." That was hilarious!!

 

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/search.php?searchid=768699

 

Like I said, Holland beats you:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/search.php?searchid=31166

 

:lol: