Is the Misterium Sensor an AltaSens CMOS?

[Jason Rodriguez]

Looking at the images published yesterday on RedUser and comparing those to the ones of the SI-2K camera (which has an AltaSens CMOS) they look pretty much the same to me.

 

The "Mysterium" is not from AltaSens, as I myself know who designed it as well as where it's fabbed (this is a very small community . . . there aren't many places or people with this type of expertise in the world), but it is nice to know that people think they look really similar :)

[Carl Brighton]

The "Mysterium" is not from AltaSens, as I myself know who designed it as well as where it's fabbed (this is a very small community . . . there aren't many places or people with this type of expertise in the world), but it is nice to know that people think they look really similar :)

Well perhaps you can answer this question. But I know you won't, neither will Nattress et al. Well, not provide a real answer anyway.

 

Seeing as the RED is supposed to be a "Cinematography" camera, (and I know, I mustn't even THINK of suspecting it's actually just a hoik-splat! VIDEO camera with more pixels), and the Mysterium is supposedly a "bespoke" chip designed specifically for Jannard, well WTF does it have a 16x9 aspect ratio?

 

Surely if this camera is meant to be an alternative to film, and its being designed from the ground up, its sensor should have the same 4x3 aspect ratio of film, so you can use existing 35mm anamorphic lenses.

 

Now I've heard many explanations for this, (some excruciatingly lame) but none fits quite as well as: "It was actually designed for a single-chip HDTV camera that never eventuated." Which I suspect, is the story behind the Genesis chip as well.

 

The number of pixels on the mysterium sounds suspiciously the number needed to get near-true-1920 RGB performance from a Bayer pattern, all of which makes me suspect that it started life as the heart of a high performance single-chip 1920 x 1080 HDTV camera.

 

Which is precisely what the Genesis is, but it hasn't exactly set the world on fire. I'm still waiting to see a prime-time TV series that uses it. (Funny that Sony haven't seen fit to market their own version of the Genesis, considering they designed most of it:-)

 

I also noticed that, according to the Wikipedia at any rate, Jannard founded the RED digital cinema company in 1999. What the hell did he do for the first 7 years?

 

Carl "If you're disagreeing with me it's probably because you wouldn't know sh!t from shaving cream" Brighton.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[Carl Brighton]

Oh for christ's sake....

 

I can't get one. I can't rent one. This is the point I was trying to make.

 

Phil

Phil: It's just another of the immutable Laws governing Internet Forums:

"If your post contains a rhetorical question, SOMEONE will always answer it!"

Always... :lol:

 

Carl "They used to say that if you had an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of keyboards, one of them would eventually produce something useful. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know that isn't true..." Brighton.

Edited September 4, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[Carl Brighton]

It seems like a lot of your questions are about things you already know are not going to get answered.

The fact that they don't get answered, is often an answer in itself. Sometimes if you suggest a totally daft answer it prods them into revealing something of the real answer. The "somethings" add up.

[Jason Rodriguez]

Well perhaps you can answer this question. But I know you won't, neither will Nattress et al. Well, not provide a real answer anyway.

 

Actually, I'm not that enlightened enough to provide you a "real" answer to your question :)

 

. . . I do know that it's a new design, or at least a new fab of a design, i.e., it's not an old re-purposed chip like you're proposing AFAIK, although maybe the pixel and ADC architectures might be slightly older IP that is being re-purposed, but again, I don't know much info beyond that.

[Cesar Rubio]

The "Mysterium" is not from AltaSens, as I myself know who designed it as well as where it's fabbed (this is a very small community . . . there aren't many places or people with this type of expertise in the world), but it is nice to know that people think they look really similar :)

 

Jason:

 

I actually like your SI-2K "mini" camera for 3-D work...what is the front width of the camera?

For 3-D work it must be 65mm (2.5") or less, to pair 2 cams and get 65mm (ortho stereo) from center to center of both lenses.

 

I think that you are heading the right direction with the "mini" approach...3-D will be the NEW standard soon.

 

The Red team will have to go with a similar design to be able to survive in the future.

 

Thanks,

 

Cesar Rubio.

Cambridge, Wisconsin. USA

http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

[Daniel Gourley]

The fact that they don't get answered, is often an answer in itself. Sometimes if you suggest a totally daft answer it prods them into revealing something of the real answer. The "somethings" add up.

 

 

Carl, still haven't received an answer as to what you do or have done that warrants your attitude of superiority? What are your credits? What have you worked on? I have google you and looked through IMDB and you are nowhere to be found...

 

Are you a janitor per chance?

[Max Jacoby]

Carl, still haven't received an answer as to what you do or have done that warrants your attitude of superiority? What are your credits? What have you worked on? I have google you and looked through IMDB and you are nowhere to be found...

 

Are you a janitor per chance?

Everybody knows he is the reincarnation of Jim Murdoch ;)

[Jon Hunter]

Carl is one of these guys who is nothing but a "nay" sayer. I have been watching his posts for a long time and I was so happy when he announced he was not going to be posting here again. I guess he got bored and wanted to stir things up a bit so he has returned here.

 

Carl appears to be a smart guy who seems to have very good knowledge about cameras. His problem is that he can come across as very insulting to others here. Over time, I have watched him slam the indie film-maker, and I am simply tired of it.

 

Now he is a blast to just make fun of. He is part of the reason I joined here.

 

I can assure you that he will not give out any info of what he does - or what his credits may be. As he says that Red will never give out any info, I think you will find it funny that he will not either.

 

I thought for now I would go lightly on him. I am certain he will return fire at me shortly. Get ready for the fun insults.

[John Sprung]

Surely if this camera is meant to be an alternative to film, and its being designed from the ground up, its sensor should have the same 4x3 aspect ratio of film, so you can use existing 35mm anamorphic lenses.

Why would anybody want to do that? -- Mess with anamorphic? It's done in film as a way to leverage the existing mechanical infrastructure into wide screen. But designing from scratch, why mess with the alignment and light loss issues?

 

Film started out as 4x3 -- or for a clearer expression, 1.33:1. With the addition of sound, it went slightly wider, 1.37:1 Academy. Then TV came along, and they blew it up bigger and cropped top and bottom to make 1.85:1. For really wide, they went anamorphic, 2.39:1. When they designed the then-new 65/70 system, its native aspect ratio was 2.21:1. They didn't make it 4x3 with anamorphics to get the ratio they wanted. (OK, they did use a slight anamorphosis to get 2.75:1 or whatever it was -- but that didn't do well in the market.)

 

Anamorphic is a pain to shoot with, and doesn't gain you any resolution. It does let you put more light on the screen without burning the film up, though.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tim Terner]

I've always really hoped that the Red camera would succeed, and, in doing so, give filmmakers an added alternative to their origination needs. However when I read any thread from a C___ B_______ it always conjures up in my mind Crap Bucket !!!

[Jason Rodriguez]

what is the front width of the camera?

For 3-D work it must be 65mm (2.5") or less, to pair 2 cams and get 65mm (ortho stereo) from center to center of both lenses.

 

The MINI actually needs a beam-splitter system for 3D work, altough this setup is a lot smaller than what you can do with any other cameras, except for maybe the T-head from the Sony cameras.

 

We'll be coming out with a new series of cameras though that will be even smaller than the MINI . . . it won't be a replacement of the MINI, it will be a bit different, but if you want to put two cameras side-by-side, then that will probaby be the ideal design.

 

We've found so-far from the test of those doing 3D work with out cameras that c-mount lenses don't do the trick for large-format photography . . . so you end up having to use really good glass like Zeiss primes, etc, all of which have front element diameters that are a lot larger than 2.5", so the point of having a really small width is lost when the glass you use is going to be larger than the camera itself (witness the image of the Digiprime on our MINI head on the website).

 

Thanks,

 

Jason

[John Sprung]

I don't see how that argument would preclude it from being from Altasens. It has to come from somewhere. All Jannard is saying that he has an exclusive deal with a chip manufacturer, so it could be Altasens or someone else. Although I'd guess it not from Dalsa ;)

OK, let's try a little analogy between the chip business and the movie business.

 

The design of a chip is a huge and expensive piece of intellectual property. It's sort of like the writing, direction, acting, cinematography, editing and all that rolled into one.

 

That design gets put into physical form as a photographic mask set. That mask set is like the cut camera original negative and print master.

 

A chip foundry uses the mask set to make chips. A lab uses the negative and print master to make IP/IN's, optical track negs, and release prints.

 

It isn't so much an exclusive deal with a chip maker as it's like taking your neg to a lab to make prints of your movie.

 

Before a feature is released, do we want to know who wrote and directed it, or is it more important to know who made the release prints? ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

Anamorphic is a pain to shoot with, and doesn't gain you any resolution.

But it looks gorgeous John. Much more so than Super 35.

[Stephen Williams]

Everybody knows he is the reincarnation of Jim Murdoch ;)

 

Hi Max,

 

Jim Murdoch's real name I am reliably informed was Keith Walters, who once worked for Panavison, now that's a surprise!

 

Stephen

[Max Jacoby]

Hi Max,

 

Jim Murdoch's real name I am reliably informed was Keith Walters, who once worked for Panavison, now that's a surprise!

 

Stephen

Ah that's interesting!

[John Sprung]

But it looks gorgeous John. Much more so than Super 35.

Yes, but that's mostly because you can pour more light thru a bigger hot hole, without burning the film. You also get more grains on the screen vertically, but not horizontally. A flat format of the same area would look at least as good, and a bigger flat aperture would be even better, which is the whole idea behind 65/70. Anamorphic is a band-aid, not what you'd do designing a system from scratch.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Sam Wells]

Well Dalsa seems to be pursuing it nonetheless.

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

Yes, but they already had their chip. Just like with film, anamorphic is a way to make the shape you want from the chip you got.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Cesar Rubio]

The MINI actually needs a beam-splitter system for 3D work, altough this setup is a lot smaller than what you can do with any other cameras, except for maybe the T-head from the Sony cameras.

 

We'll be coming out with a new series of cameras though that will be even smaller than the MINI . . . it won't be a replacement of the MINI, it will be a bit different, but if you want to put two cameras side-by-side, then that will probaby be the ideal design.

 

We've found so-far from the test of those doing 3D work with out cameras that c-mount lenses don't do the trick for large-format photography . . . so you end up having to use really good glass like Zeiss primes, etc, all of which have front element diameters that are a lot larger than 2.5", so the point of having a really small width is lost when the glass you use is going to be larger than the camera itself (witness the image of the Digiprime on our MINI head on the website).

 

Thanks,

 

Jason

 

 

Thanks for your response Jason.

 

I think that manufacturers like Zeiss and others would make excellent c-mount lenses if they were needed or requested.

As time passes and the movie making industry makes the change to 3-D, a complete set of tools are going to be needed and hence designed and manufactured to supply that need.

 

Any how, I see a bright future for the SI-2K MINI, Congratulations and keep up the good work!

 

If I had the money right now, I would buy a couple of MINIS for 3-D work, probably some day...

 

Cesar Rubio.

Cambridge Wisconsin, USA.

http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

[Keith Walters]

Ah that's interesting!

 

Apart from the fact that I did once work for Panavision, also totally untrue.

 

In late December last year, somebody obviously hoping to prove a connection between myself and Jim Murdoch hacked into a number of accounts in this forum and elsewhere, and also hijacked the attached email accounts, changing the passwords.

 

When he or they presumably found nothing in any of the accounts that linked myself or Jim Murdoch or anybody else, they took personal details from a resume stolen out of one of my email accounts, and maliciously copied them into the personal profiles of both myself and Jim Murdoch.

 

Then, using Murdoch's account, they posted a ridiculous von Krogh - like drunken rant where Jim Murdoch supposedly "apologized" to Jim Jannard, Panavision, all the RED Fanboys and anybody else "I" may have offended.

The post was taken down almost immediately, but not before one of the Cinematography.com members saved a copy and forwarded it to me. I didn't actually see von Krogh's last posting here, but I'm told it was very similar in tone and general construction.

Some indication of the perpetrator's mental state might be given by the fact that he seemed unsure which of of us is the real person. If he was so sure I am Jim Murdoch, why didn't he use MY hijacked account to make the post?

 

I was eventually able to regain control of my Cinematography.com account and my more important email accounts but Murdoch was apparently unable to do the same, so his "profile" remains fossilized with my details in it.

Then for some bizarre reason, my other email accounts mysteriously reverted to their original passwords after a couple of weeks. As though somebody might have been worried about leaving evidence at the "crime scene".

 

There is a lot more to this story, but those are all the details I am prepared to divulge.

 

All of this may serve as a warning to people who allow fanboy cultures to proliferate, that you inevitably attract loose cannons who may go too far on your behalf.

[Keith Mottram]

Yes, but that's mostly because you can pour more light thru a bigger hot hole, without burning the film. You also get more grains on the screen vertically, but not horizontally. A flat format of the same area would look at least as good, and a bigger flat aperture would be even better, which is the whole idea behind 65/70. Anamorphic is a band-aid, not what you'd do designing a system from scratch.

-- J.S.

 

John,

 

Do you honestly think that people shoot anamorphic because its a bodge job way of achieving a widescreen picture? I suggest you go to a rental house look through an anamorphic lens for yourself. I would happily throw away half of red's chip and use anamorphic lenses to get my widescreen picture. To you a band aid to others a creative tool. you might not like the look of anamorphic but don't mistake for a technology stop gap- people still paint with oils yet its a hell of a lot easier to use acrylics.

 

now when is that russian camera coming out....

 

keith

[John Sprung]

John,

 

Do you honestly think that people shoot anamorphic because its a bodge job way of achieving a widescreen picture?

 

No, they shoot it in spite of that fact. It's a price/performance point in between flat super 35 and 65mm that may be the best choice in some cases. I'm not saying that anamorphic is a terrible evil thing -- it's just not what anybody would choose to do designing a complete new system. Things that are quite poorly designed can still get the job done -- for instance, I'm typing this on a Windows computer. ;-)

I suggest you go to a rental house look through an anamorphic lens for yourself.

Actually I have shot a little anamorphic, but that was over 20 years ago. The choice back then was between big heavy lenses, or flat lenses with this huge thing that looked like a glass manhole cover -- I think it was from Arri.

I would happily throw away half of red's chip and use anamorphic lenses to get my widescreen picture.

The idea behnd anamorphic is to not throw away any light sensitive area, be it emulsion or silicon. It's the flat shoot/optical blowup route that has that liability. But there's no reason you couldn't put anamorphics on a red. Existing 2:1 anamorphics would give you 3.56:1, so you'd have to do some cropping. But it's worth a try. You could design new ones with less squeeze and get a better result -- more expensive than using existing glass, less expensive than designing a new chip.

To you a band aid to others a creative tool. you might not like the look of anamorphic but don't mistake for a technology stop gap- people still paint with oils yet its a hell of a lot easier to use acrylics.

People paint with watercolors, too -- that's far more difficult to control than oils.

now when is that russian camera coming out....

 

I'm not sure what Russian camera you mean.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Lucas Wilson]

> Couple that with a forum of zealots and ass kissing Jannard sycophants, and the whole project is really nauseating.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

I will probably never get within a hundred miles of one of these cameras anyway. They've made it difficult enough to find out whether they're really any damned good. But to be honest, the whole thing just leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth - like no other piece of simple technology I've ever seen before, it's wrapped up in such a thick layer of hype, bullshit and sycophantism I really don't want to be associated with it.

 

How have "they made it difficult?" That's just silly. And if you don't like the marketing... well... stop visiting red.com and reduser.net.

 

I was on a RED shoot this past Saturday, am dealing with RED footage all day today and all day tomorrow. I know several well-respected industry DPs that are shooting with one of the 1st 25 cameras now, and several very critical camera and lens tests that are taking place pretty much as I write this. I know at least 5 facilities in and around LA that have footage and are poking and prodding right now.

 

The fact that you're not a part of the crew for one of those tests doesn't mean it's not happening. The fact that you didn't buy one of the first cameras doesn't mean they don't exist. And the fact that you don't work at a post facility that is working with the footage doesn't mean people aren't analyzing and figuring things out. I was at RED this past Friday, and the first reservation holders are everyone from a student who was in the right place at the right time to some very established industry professionals.

 

I know for a fact that pretty much anybody who takes the time to drive out to RED in Lake Forest will get a very nice reception. They're nice people who are proud of their product and the work they do.

 

Phil - have you contacted any of the first res. holders to offer services? Have you been to Orange County and taken the time to make a phone call to RED and arrange a visit? Jim is there most days, and while he's a busy guy, he is very accessible and enthusiastic about his company and his products.

 

I don't see how they've made it any more difficult than it is to visit Panavision and see the internal workings of the Genesis... or to visit Sony and arrange meetings with the senior F950 engineers.

 

If you think you'll never get within 100 miles of a camera, I'd venture to say it could be because you haven't tried, and you no longer really want to try - for whatever reason.

 

Best,

 

Lucas Wilson

---------------

ASSIMILATE, Inc.

LA, CA, USA

[Ruairi Robinson]

No, they shoot it in spite of that fact. It's a price/performance point in between flat super 35 and 65mm that may be the best choice in some cases. I'm not saying that anamorphic is a terrible evil thing -- it's just not what anybody would choose to do designing a complete new system.

 

Nobody shoots Anamorphic in spite of anything in the year 2007. They shoot in scope because they like the look. And it's certainly not for CONVENIENCE!

 

But there's no reason you couldn't put anamorphics on a red. Existing 2:1 anamorphics would give you 3.56:1, so you'd have to do some cropping. But it's worth a try. You could design new ones with less squeeze and get a better result -- more expensive than using existing glass, less expensive than designing a new chip.

 

The reason scope lenses on red is a BAD idea is that you waste resolution on the chip top and bottom, and you waste resolution on the lenses left and right (and lose the ability to shoot wide angle too) so its a pretty poor compromise to get that look. And Useless if you hope to shoot on wide angle lenses.

 

Bah.