NO readable camera info.

[Adam Thompson]

Is there another source for RED information besides the reduser forum? This one has a bad rep. for really no reason but it does so it won't count for a while I guess. Trying to navigate the reduser forums is one of the most insane tasks Ive tried. It's as if 90% of it's posters are hired by RED to act like cheerleaders and very few seem to know anything about actual shooting sets. Say what you will but it's true. You know that out of 1000 new buyers, I'd bet maybe 200 of those will see any actual work. The rest will go on a shelf and remind some 25yo how he just wasted dad's $25,000.

 

Anyway is there some other source that sort of wraps up the hard information? Their web site doesn't. Being able to read all the tech info that relates to it (workflow developments, lens info, acc. options, etc., etc.) sure would be helpful to someone that needs to know for professional reasons.

 

Maybe the "red team" needs to do something about it at some point. Wrap things up for those who aren't fans but will be users. Either that or start editing the #&$% out of your boards so people can read them. I won't join it because it seems like a waste and it seems like if you question one little thing, you get stepped on for it. That is a real turn-off and makes me feel like I'm on a DVX board or something like that with lots of highschool kids.

 

One day the fans will tire of the hype and will see how they are just one of 1000's of clones and give it up on ebay and you guys will need real USERS that continue to support. Don't forget, Aaton, S.G., and others may rob your market over the next few years if you aren't careful.

[Adam Thompson]

Sorry I meant S.I. -Silicon Imaging.

 

I was thinking Silicon Graphics!

[Werner Klipsch]

Is there another source for RED information besides the reduser forum? This one has a bad rep. for really no reason but it does so it won't count for a while I guess. Trying to navigate the reduser forums is one of the most insane tasks Ive tried. It's as if 90% of it's posters are hired by RED to act like cheerleaders and very few seem to know anything about actual shooting sets.

And your point? :lol:

There is useful information in there, just very well camouflaged in all the brown-nosed undergrowth :rolleyes: You need to log in every day and read the "today's posts" to keep up.

 

"This forum" has a "bad rep." because most of the noses here are still acceptably pink!

 

"very few seem to know anything about actual shooting sets."

You notice this too?

There seems to be a lot of people there who don't seem to know too much about anything, that I at least would expect they would ;)

[jan von krogh]

Don't forget, Aaton, S.G., and others may rob your market over the next few years if you aren't careful.

 

i suppose aaton & S.I. together wouldn´t be unhappy with 2000 camera units on order.

[Michael Morlan]

Adam,

 

The sticky posts on the reduser.net forum are a pretty good condensation of all the noise:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487 - RED One FAQ

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1119 - connectors

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1110 - data workflow diagram

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1476 - E2E workflow diagram

 

Those threads are pretty hype free. ;)

 

Michael

[Adam Thompson]

Adam,

 

The sticky posts on the reduser.net forum are a pretty good condensation of all the noise:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1487 - RED One FAQ

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1119 - connectors

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1110 - data workflow diagram

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1476 - E2E workflow diagram

 

Those threads are pretty hype free. ;)

 

Michael

 

Thanks Michael and nice work on the diagrams! Let me ask you this since you seem to know a lot about it, and excuse me if it's in those links and I'm not seeing it.

 

For example, most shoots are going to realistically shoot with an HD or maybe a 2K workflow. If that's the case, would one of my Zeiss Super16 primes be the most practical lens to use for a good while since, in it's 2K form, the RED is using a windowed S16mm sized portion of it's sensor? Or would many productions want 35mm lenses to cover the whole sensor because they'll want to scale down the 4K image to a 2K file? Or is that possible on camera? I'm curious as it almost seems like the big 4K sensor is sort of a gimmik at this point. Even new digital theaters are only able to project at 2K and it will be that way for a long time.

 

And, how do I monitor with a non-HD LCD screen? Can I still use a normal 16:9 LCD to frame with? I ask because the outputs dont seem to include a video-out (BNC, S-video?). Also, how do we transmit an image for a director to watch or for remote mounting if there are no NTSC/PAL video outs? Is my VHF/UHF video transmitter useless now because it won't plug into it's HD connectors? Will I need some conversion box inline now?

 

You should ask the forum "bosses" over there to lock the thread next time you post facts. Everytime someone works to explain something, fanboys go crazy with "hey i love that button and red is jesus... i cant wait to start shooting my actorless, setless, proless, film with it! one day there will be a picture of me standing beside my red with me pointing somewhere and finally looking like somebody... yeehoo!" ETC. ETC.

:lol:

[jan von krogh]

Thanks Michael and nice work on the diagrams! Let me ask you this since you seem to know a lot about it, and excuse me if it's in those links and I'm not seeing it.

many good threads are on the reduser forum. takes certainly many hours to find em all.

 

For example, most shoots are going to realistically shoot with an HD or maybe a 2K workflow.

fully possible - however you can shoot at 4k redcode raw and then -later- convert that in post.

FCP, as example, converts 4k redcode raw on the fly to 2k.

So in several scenarios , it might be agood idea to reduce the quality to 2k later on, not already in the camera.

 

If that's the case, would one of my Zeiss Super16 primes be the most practical lens to use for a good while since, in it's 2K form, the RED is using a windowed S16mm sized portion of it's sensor?

different possibilities. with the zeiss super16 primes (we also have them on our rental) you will have a good lens (especially with the 1.2/3) for

- 120P highspeed. 2K can do that, 4K can "only" do 60p.

- deeper DOF

Or would many productions want 35mm lenses to cover the whole sensor because they'll want to scale down the 4K image to a 2K file? Or is that possible on camera?

Both is possible: 4k downscale to 2k in post or in cmera. However, be aware, for 4k you will need 35 glass. And using 4k downscaled offers better quality, without going into the details of debayering and lo/hipassfilters, you can expect a lower grain, ehhh, noise-level as well as a slightly better sensor readout overall. Oversampling is the keyword here.

 

I'm curious as it almost seems like the big 4K sensor is sort of a gimmik at this point.

I disagree.

Even if you don´t distribute 4k later, 4k offers many benefits even for todays typical 2k/1080p 35mm film DI/HD workflow.

- pan & scan. if the mic is visible, just scale it out. with 2k for 2k, you will lose quality, with 4k to 2k, well you can zoom in 200% and its still pixel by pixel.

- anarmophotic/cinemascope. nuff said :)

- for any kind of vfx or dophisticated postproduction, you can´t have enough image data - keying, tracking, rotoscoping etc.

- for colorcorrection and/or degrain/noise, higher resolution is a bleesing. you can easily degrain/denoise from 4k to 2k, from 2k to 2k its harder, if you don´t want to sacrifice resolution.

- smaller noise footprint. this also helps in staying clear off posterisations when grading footage a little bit more extreme

- and finally: 35mm dof - if you want 35mm dof, you will need the total sensor readout, and that is 4k, or slightly above to be precise.

 

Even new digital theaters are only able to project at 2K and it will be that way for a long time.

This topic is quite interesting, however i won´t go into it with much detail. Yes, most digital and 35mm recording is done at 2k. And yes, i suppose that 4k will take quite a time until it becomes the mayority. Besides the advantages of shooting 4k listed above, there is one thing worth considering:

- your master will always be reduced in quality in distribution.

35mm projection MTF in your average cinema is slightly below 2k. However, when you record your master in 2k, it will most certainly go through i/P i/n processes until it arrives at the cinema. So, the distribution copy will be quite a bit below 2k, even when the master has been recorded in 2k, thus becoming slowly the bottleneck. So, recording 4k might be, especially for 35mm filmout, be the better route to go.

 

And, how do I monitor with a non-HD LCD screen? Can I still use a normal 16:9 LCD to frame with? I ask because the outputs dont seem to include a video-out (BNC, S-video?). Also, how do we transmit an image for a director to watch or for remote mounting if there are no NTSC/PAL video outs? Is my VHF/UHF video transmitter useless now because it won't plug into it's HD connectors? Will I need some conversion box inline now?

As it seems, you will need a downconverter to use NTSC/PAL gear. AJA, just to name one manufacturer, offers compact and inexpensive downcownverters.

We however won´t recommend to monitor at 0.35MP PAL/NTSC - the risk of missing focus issues, tiny reflection etc seems pretty high. there are several good hd-lcds and even better hd-crts.

for the directors monitor etc, you can also consider using HDMI if you can use consumer equipment.

 

You should ask the forum "bosses" over there to lock the thread next time you post facts. Everytime someone works to explain something, fanboys go crazy with "hey i love that button and red is jesus... i cant wait to start shooting my actorless, setless, proless, film with it! one day there will be a picture of me standing beside my red with me pointing somewhere and finally looking like somebody... yeehoo!" ETC. ETC.

:lol:

No pun intended - several of the fans have certainly a quite higher knowledge than you regarding the red camera and its workflow, so it might be worth considering just asking polite question and you will probably get polite answers. furthermore, on peak times there are several thousands users online at reduser, and some houndreds in normal days. i suppose you would be able to find many qualified people among them.

[Adam Thompson]

No pun intended - several of the fans have certainly a quite higher knowledge than you regarding the red camera and its workflow, so it might be worth considering just asking polite question and you will probably get polite answers. furthermore, on peak times there are several thousands users online at reduser, and some houndreds in normal days. i suppose you would be able to find many qualified people among them.

 

We however won´t recommend to monitor at 0.35MP PAL/NTSC - the risk of missing focus issues, tiny reflection etc seems pretty high. there are several good hd-lcds and even better hd-crts.

for the directors monitor etc, you can also consider using HDMI if you can use consumer equipment.

 

If there's one thing I get tired of, it's posturing posts like this. Can't people just respond normally?!?!

 

I seriously doubt that one fan over there has half the practical experience I do and 90% are incapable of answering anything in a useful manner. Yeah maybe some know more fan-facts than I do and that's great, doesn't mean anything in the real world as they will never shoot anything, but it's "great" - I guess.? And who are you to respond to me anyway? Did I ask you? No. Please keep your unfounded, arrogant attitude to yourself.

 

And you missed the point about the LCD question. I'm not talking about some video village device and I'm not talking about a screen for checking focus or reflections. Many people (myself) like to have a small handheld screen so that I or a director, etc can check framing. It's a common thing, look into it. Oh and some of us (myself again) will do anything to avoid lugging around some big HD screen for eveyone to stare at. It's annoying and counterproductive on many levels and on others, it simply is impossible to do. The more I think about it, the more I like my Aaton, once again, with it's optical viewfinder and it's inability to let noses pry into MY images. Think about that one guys. One day the DP will be nothing more than a video tech if we aren't careful. Watching the show while you are making the show is not all it's cracked up to be.

 

http://www.transvideointl.com/pages/englis...65rainbowII.htm with a UHF receiver built in works well. But with a red I guess you can't go that route, which sucks.

 

Hey RED, add an NTSC video tap for all us many 1000's of "old" small-screen LCD and video transmitter owners!

[jan von krogh]

And who are you to respond to me anyway? Did I ask you? No. Please keep your unfounded, arrogant attitude to yourself.

Mr. Thompson, i suppose that you missed the purpose of a internet discussion board a bit.

And, if i may add, your manners leave as much room to be enhanced as your basic knowledge of the red workflow.

 

And you missed the point about the LCD question.

You are wrong.

The answer, as posted before, is the downconverter.

If you shouldn´t know what these devices do:

They convert the HD-SDI output into FBAS/YUV/YcbCr/SDI/YC etc SD signals.

Size from matchbox to 1/2 inch tape, price from $$$ to $$.$$$.

 

The more I think about it, the more I like my Aaton, once again, with it's optical viewfinder and it's inability to let noses pry into MY images.

Obvious.

[Mitch Gross]

Gee, I though he took a great deal of time & effort to answer your questions thoughtfully. Shooting on any HD camera requires a downconverter for SD uses such as a wireless monitor. Only consumer cameras and just a couple of professional cameras offer built in downconverters, so it's no big deal that the RED One does not. You want SD for your video transmitter? Stick on an AJA HD-10MD3 box and be done with it just like everybody else. You want it to work more like your Aaton? Well, sorry, this is a different camera with a different workflow in mind. Note that there is currently only two cameras out there like this that use optical viewfinders -- the Dalsa Origin (and soon the Evolution model) and the Arri D20. Everyone else is using electronic finders and I won't go into the debate, but there are actually some arguments to be made for the advantages of an electronic finder.

 

Back to one of your original questions, I thought that the option for shooting the full 4K sensor and oversampling down to 2k was only possible in post, not in camera. It was an early spec of the camera that was later changed and frankly I miss it, but that is a lot of computing to be done on the fly and I can understand why it's gone. Am I wrong and that feature is back? I believe if you are going for 2K recording in camera than the only option is the windowed sensor, in which yes, your S-16 glass will cover the image area. In this mode the function of the camera is a lot like the Silicon Imaging camera.

[Steven Parker]

Gee, I though he took a great deal of time & effort to answer your questions thoughtfully.

 

I agree. Jan posted thoughtful, polite and very thorough answers. Why the bad attitude?

 

And yes, reduser can be a bit annoying at times but the knowledge available there from working professionals is invaluable. Hence Michael's links to the info threads and diagrams. BTW, most of that info was built by reduser members themselves, as an aid to people who aren't sold on the camera yet and as a way of centralizing the confirmed info that's available.

 

Just ask politely - someone will post a link for you or you'll have started a new thread.

 

And Thank You goes a LONG way. You might consider saying it to Jan.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Steven Parker

[jan von krogh]

I thought that the option for shooting the full 4K sensor and oversampling down to 2k was only possible in post, not in camera. It was an early spec of the camera that was later changed and frankly I miss it, but that is a lot of computing to be done on the fly and I can understand why it's gone.

 

If this feature isn´t available anymore, it would be interesting to know if thats in the initial camerasoftware, will be upgraded in the camera later or won´t be in the camera at all but in the redcine application.

As producer, i would also like to have it oncamera. From the postproduction perspective however, i suppose most folks there would welcome a "4k only"-policy.

[Michael Morlan]

Jan, nice reply to Adam's questions.

 

Adam, a simple "thank you" would be appropriate here.

 

Best,

 

Michael

[Mitch Gross]

If this feature isn´t available anymore, it would be interesting to know if thats in the initial camerasoftware, will be upgraded in the camera later or won´t be in the camera at all but in the redcine application.

As producer, i would also like to have it oncamera. From the postproduction perspective however, i suppose most folks there would welcome a "4k only"-policy.

This was a big change in the specs around January I believe. The only 2K output is a windowed sensor. It's a heck of a thing to do on the fly in camera, so I guess they decided that they couldn't do it to the quality they wanted in realtime. I agree it would be nice, but it's also a big task.

[jan von krogh]

This was a big change in the specs around January I believe.

I missed that one, good to know. So it will be 4k>2k onset/notebook or in the studio then.

I am starting to catch up right now (had been buried under 2 full-feature productions in the recent months) as delivery is getting close.

 

The only 2K output is a windowed sensor. It's a heck of a thing to do on the fly in camera, so I guess they decided that they couldn't do it to the quality they wanted in realtime. I agree it would be nice, but it's also a big task.

The specifications have changed quite a bit. When we ordered, 4K redcode on-camera -wasn´t- announced. That was a mayor improvement.

 

p.s.

Might i ask, how many cameras Abel has on order? Certainly more than our 2, i suppose.

[Mitch Gross]

Might i ask, how many cameras Abel has on order? Certainly more than our 2, i suppose.

Oh, you can ask...

 

This is not something I'm personally at liberty to say.

[jan von krogh]

Oh, you can ask...

This is not something I'm personally at liberty to say.

 

why did i expect that answer...

;)

[John Sprung]

Back to one of your original questions, I thought that the option for shooting the full 4K sensor and oversampling down to 2k was only possible in post, not in camera.

 

There is no theoretical reason why the conversion couldn't be built into the camera. There are practical reasons why it might not be a good idea.

 

That kind of conversion isn't easy. It takes a lot of power and space in the limited budget of a camera, but can be done much better in a rack mounted box with mains power. If you sample and record 4k, you have a better looking 4k picture than you could get by downconverting in the camera and upconverting in post. So, recording the full 4k gives you a better original to work with for the future.

 

Taking 2k out by windowing is quite easy. But of course it won't look as good because you have to make the 2k Nyquist limit optically rather than digitally.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mitch Gross]

The idea of many was to shoot in 4k but oversample down to 2k in camera and then remain in 2k. It has been shown time and time again that an oversampled image is always better, especially in this type of situation. In addition there is the added benefit of the full 35mm sensor area for field of view and depth of field characteristics that so many covet. And it is a huge operation to attempt to do this well in a live, on the fly realtime in camera solution. In the end that's likely why they removed the function.

[jan von krogh]

And it is a huge operation to attempt to do this well in a live, on the fly realtime in camera solution. In the end that's likely why they removed the function.

Furthermore, we shouldn´t forget, that even if feasible, that open ups some new cans, or barrels, of worms for the coders.

Mr. Natress would have more than double the work at hands if he would have to QA these functions.

 

However, as sad i am that we might have no 2k in camera - we have been sold for the camera being only 2k onboard.

Now its 4k. Thats a huge improvement.

[Häakon]

I thought that the option for shooting the full 4K sensor and oversampling down to 2k was only possible in post, not in camera.

I think one of the reasons that we haven't heard anything about this lately is that they are really pushing the [redcode] RAW format, and you can't scale the RAW images (to make other RAW images). When internal 4K to 2K scaling was being discussed in previous iterations of the feature chart, it was only applicable to RGB-originated footage. Since there are numerous advantages to shooting RAW, it seems like that this is mostly all the development team has really been talking about (and testing), and there has been no talk of scaling as a result. It has also been posted that the first batch of cameras will not even have RGB mode "turned on" (it will be a firmware upgrade down the line), and as such, no scaling would be possible even if the feature still exists. This is to say that downscaling of the RGB footage in-camera may or may not still be an option at some point, but because of the focus placed on the RAW functionality, it does not seem to be a priority.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Häakon

[Gavin Greenwalt]

2K RGB in camera was removed as a priority for development probably because it doesn't really serve any useful purpose.

 

2K RGB is only a 25% drop in datarate... if that (Math: 1/4 resolution * 3 colors = 3/4)

 

Why lose such a significant portion of your data and flexibility at capture for a measely 25% data reduction. Especially when solid state memory is dropping in price so rapidly.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Jan, nice reply to Adam's questions.

 

Adam, a simple "thank you" would be appropriate here.

 

Best,

 

Michael

Yeah, where's Mr. Thompson now? :lol: