RED Sensors getting bigger

[Paul Bruening]

Having watched this forum's descent into almost complete irrelevance over the last couple years, I'd say that there are significantly more than half a dozen fruitcakes.

[Neil Duffy]

Neil,

 

I've had the same thought. I don't know for sure, but most of what I've been reading seems to indicate that the present digital imaging sensors have hit a wall dictated by the laws of physics. If this is true, then for digital to improve, the sensors (and photosites) have to get bigger. Maybe some of the more knowledgeable tech-oriented guys who post here could elaborate.

 

-Fran

 

Your right, it really is a question of physics. There seems to be a correlation between pixel size and light gathering ability. That is probably why Cannon and Nikon went for FF35. But where is the true limit of digital sensors?

 

But in a way, it does not really matter what is the absolute limit of sensors. What matters, is where that limit will be for the next 10 years when film transfers to digital and new standards are created based on digital sensors. Once a standard is set for Digital Cinematography, all the accessories, lenses and talent will adjust to that standard. Even if the light gathering drastically improves, larger sensors and larger lenses will probably always gather more light. So the improvements, may just be in image quality, rather than sensor size.

 

We might have some small sensors for specific action shots, but the main cameras will always be based on the new standard.

 

Again, this is the opinion of someone with no technical knowledge.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Hey Paul, I resemble that remark!

 

Seriously, though 10 yrs from now this discussion will be buried under mounds of other posts. . . I'm not concerned with 10 yrs from now-- I may well die if this chest cold has it's way! I'm more concerned with the next few months as Red brings these systems online and starts to show footage. More so I'm interested in when these systems start to get delivered, and used, by people who will both bitch and extol it. Till then, those renders look nice. Kudos to whoever created their brochure! That's all there really is at this point.

[Dominic Cochran]

Hi Tom,

 

It's a render, RED have been rather slow in delivering high quality motion picture glass, The Red Primes are yet to be released & the 18-85 is in rather short supply. The 18-50 whilst sharp had mechanical issues which don't seem have been addressed.

 

Stephen

 

The short supply of the 18-85 isn't really any worse than ordering new Cookes at this point. They're both several months out. Sucks because I've heard surprisingly(after the 18-50 mechanical problems) good things about the Red 4:1, I'd like to test it on my Red and on film.

[Tom Lowe]

We rent out two RED's a lot. So I am concerned about the upcoming EPIC.

 

It seems that digital sensors have limits. If you have a CMOS sensor, you lose about 1/3 of the resolution. So if you are aiming for true 4K, you need a 6K sensor. And if you are going increase the light gathering abilities of the camera, you have to increase the pixel size. So the only way to go, for a true 4K CMOS camera with increased light gathering abilities, is an increased sensor size. There is a reason why Cannon and Nikon went to FF35 with their high end cameras. S35 might be the sweet spot for film, but digital sensors are different. What holds for film, does not necessary hold for digital.

 

The current state of high end digital photography shows the future of digital cinematography. The question is where is the new sweet spot for digital sensors and lenses? I think Cannon and Nikon answered that question for digital photography.

 

I am betting the new standard will the FF35. As for the EPIC: 6K CMOS gives you true 4K, and you have increase dynamic range. You have millions of still lenses made for the FF35 digital photography cameras.

 

I am new to all of this. So this is the perspective of an outsider.

 

Good post, Neil.

[Stephen Williams]

The short supply of the 18-85 isn't really any worse than ordering new Cookes at this point. They're both several months out. Sucks because I've heard surprisingly(after the 18-50 mechanical problems) good things about the Red 4:1, I'd like to test it on my Red and on film.

 

Hi,

 

That does not help people who ordered the lens 2 years ago & are still waiting, Red Prime sets are still not shipping, not sure the status on 16GB cf cards either.

 

Stephen

[Keith Walters]

what even happend to that thread with the 16 lightbulbs you were trying to cal to 16 bit gray scale?

For a start I couldn't find anybody with access to a RED who was the remotest bit interested in carrying out such a test. Funny that. For some reason I find myself humming Fleetwood Mac's "Oh Well"

 

Anyway I now know what the answer is, which was all I ever intended. And don't ask me what I think it is because I might not give the answer that you want me to...

[Keith Walters]

Having watched this forum's descent into almost complete irrelevance over the last couple years, I'd say that there are significantly more than half a dozen fruitcakes.

Well yes, because I said half a dozen for every person who does know what he's talking about. There are a few people here who do know what they're talking about. Not necessarily the ones that most people think do

[Tom Lowe]

There you go hiding in the future again Tom.

 

Max, in case you did not notice, we are posting on a thread about futuristic large-sensor cameras. If you don't want to talk about the future, why are you posting on a Red FF35-related thread? ;) :lol:

[Guest User]

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s.

 

Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either:

 

1) Time will tell

2) We shall see

3) Watch and see

4) Let's see what happens

 

Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

[Tom Lowe]

Hey there's no need for personal insults. Let's keep it friendly.

[Paul Bruening]

.

[Joe Walker]

Hi,

 

That does not help people who ordered the lens 2 years ago & are still waiting, Red Prime sets are still not shipping, not sure the status on 16GB cf cards either.

 

Stephen

 

 

Hi Stephen,

 

We've had some 16gb cards on order for quite some time now and we're still waiting. We're also curious as to what the status is of the solid state drives. I guess,...."time will tell."

[Paul Bruening]

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s.

 

Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either:

 

a) Time will tell

B) We shall see

c) Watch and see

d) Let's see what happens

 

Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

[K Borowski]

Been watching too much Star Trek Keith? :lol: or chatting with Karl B.? this is pretty funny.

 

what happened to that 100,000:1 contrast ratio of red?

 

what even happend to that thread with the 16 lightbulbs you were trying to cal to 16 bit gray scale?

 

Excuse me, but what does mentioning my name have anything to do with conversation here? I bend over backwards to help your ass out, and now you use me as the subject of your derision? Incredible!

 

If you want to be sarcastic, maybe it'd be best to stop ranting as much and learn English a lot better. Also, best to learn how to stay on topic and not stalk or follow people across threads and forums. :blink:

Edited November 22, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[Guest Glen Alexander]

Excuse me, but what does mentioning my name have anything to do with conversation here? I bend over backwards to help your ass out, and now you use me as the subject of your derision? Incredible!

 

If you want to be sarcastic, maybe it'd be best to stop ranting as much and learn English a lot better. Also, best to learn how to stay on topic and not stalk or follow people across threads and forums. :blink:

 

Sorry Karl, it was a typo, Karl should have been with a C, and meant Carl Brighton. Carl B. has some of the funniest posts on this forum.

 

Take a chill pill. Contrary to your own beliefs, you are not the center of the universe. Why don't you learn ANY other language? There are times when your english is not the greatest. Now if you really want me to rant, I could and rip you a new in four languages.

 

Keith and I, banter and we occassionaly lob grenades at each other to keep things honest.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Glen Alexander

[K Borowski]

Sorry Karl, it was a typo, Karl should have been with a C, and meant Carl Brighton. Carl B. has some of the funniest posts on this forum.

 

Take a chill pill. Contrary to your own beliefs, you are not the center of the universe. Why don't you learn ANY other language? There are times when your english is not the greatest. Now if you really want me to rant, I could and rip you a new in four languages.

 

Keith and I, banter and we occassionaly lob grenades at each other to keep things honest.

 

Well, since I am the center of the universe, I don't expect your asking me for advice, in the middle of other people's threads no less, anymore.

 

Further, to use *your* language, about 99% of what you say is a load of "merge".

 

Again, merci beaucoup for the insults and the jibes in exchange for my having helped you. I won't make this same mistake in the future.

 

Au revoir mon ami :unsure:

[Keith Walters]

QUOTE (Max Jacoby @ Nov 22 2008, 11:12 AM)

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s.

 

Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either:

 

a) Time will tell

We shall see

c) Watch and see

d) Let's see what happens

 

Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9

 

Thanks Paul, I was looking for a term for that sort of tactic.

 

Actually Tom is adopting another debating tactic which I don't know the name for either, but it's another variant of the Straw Man fallacy . (Don't bother looking that up on Wikipedia, there's a complete nutjob there who keeps reverting the page to an unreadable hodge-podge of meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo).

 

Basically it's where Mr A's viewpoint/argument is pointing out that Mr B's proposition/argument is not supported by any hard evidence whatsoever, and therefore there is no rational basis for anybody doing (or not doing), or being forced to do (or not do) something, based on Mr B's assertions. Government laws or regulations being based purely on people's religious beliefs are the most common example.

 

Then Mr B will enter the fray with a phrase to the effect of "Well what if I could could prove that so-and-so actually did such-and-such in blah-blah-blah BC etc etc..."

 

The correct response to that is basically: "Well, if you (or anybody) could actually DO that, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation!" Mr B is really misrepresenting Mr A's position, which is essentially that Mr B's assertions are without any factual or verifiable basis.

 

In the case of the RED, the main source of criticism (and ridicule) here has been the fact that certain people insisted (and still insist) on discussing the cameras as though they were real functioning products, and not just concepts and computer generated images.

 

OK they did eventually produce working hardware, (although the term "working" appears to have a somewhat elastic definition), but that it the point where the discussion should have started, where people could actually look at a real operating product, and THEN decide what it's impact on the industry might be.

 

The only difference with the Scarlet and the Epic is that Jannard has demonstrated that he was able to actually organize the manufacture of a working HD video camera and mass produce them.

[Paul Bruening]

QUOTE (Max Jacoby @ Nov 22 2008, 11:12 AM)

Futuristic? That word always reminds me of how they imagined the future in the 50s.

 

Either way, I was not referring to the cameras themselves, but to your tendency of avoiding arguments based on concrete, real-world knowledge by saying either:

 

a) Time will tell

We shall see

c) Watch and see

d) Let's see what happens

 

Which as far as I'm concerned are merely euphemisms for: I don't have a clue.

 

 

 

Thanks Paul, I was looking for a term for that sort of tactic.

 

Actually Tom is adopting another debating tactic which I don't know the name for either, but it's another variant of the Straw Man fallacy . (Don't bother looking that up on Wikipedia, there's a complete nutjob there who keeps reverting the page to an unreadable hodge-podge of meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo).

 

Basically it's where Mr A's viewpoint/argument is pointing out that Mr B's proposition/argument is not supported by any hard evidence whatsoever, and therefore there is no rational basis for anybody doing (or not doing), or being forced to do (or not do) something, based on Mr B's assertions. Government laws or regulations being based purely on people's religious beliefs are the most common example.

 

Then Mr B will enter the fray with a phrase to the effect of "Well what if I could could prove that so-and-so actually did such-and-such in blah-blah-blah BC etc etc..."

 

The correct response to that is basically: "Well, if you (or anybody) could actually DO that, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation!" Mr B is really misrepresenting Mr A's position, which is essentially that Mr B's assertions are without any factual or verifiable basis.

 

In the case of the RED, the main source of criticism (and ridicule) here has been the fact that certain people insisted (and still insist) on discussing the cameras as though they were real functioning products, and not just concepts and computer generated images.

 

OK they did eventually produce working hardware, (although the term "working" appears to have a somewhat elastic definition), but that it the point where the discussion should have started, where people could actually look at a real operating product, and THEN decide what it's impact on the industry might be.

 

The only difference with the Scarlet and the Epic is that Jannard has demonstrated that he was able to actually organize the manufacture of a working HD video camera and mass produce them.

 

It took me a while to understand that fallacies are used like a tool of control by all kinds of big people. We see it used most obviously during political campaigns. My assumption about it is that fallacies are something like holes in the otherwise solid fabric of our thinking. These holes are not easily detected by common sense. Thusly, they get used on purpose to distract or divert us. They are clearly weaknesses we have. At the same time, I have seen fallacies used as a viable way to move thinking around in a way not available to the inherent limits of logic and reason. My feeling is that fallacies are there for a good reason but they get used for the worst reasons. When I catch a politician use a fallacy on purpose and that purpose is obviously a devious or evil one, it gets me a little irked. When us common folk use fallacies, it's often just an honest mistake of untrained-in-the-membrane. So, I try to let it go or offer a compensating suggestion.

 

As far as Citizen Jannard is concerned: He's a marketing guy. That's his gig, babe. He knows people will talk way more on speculative stuff than on actual stuff. Actual stuff is known, therefore, boring. The sky's the limit on speculation and imagination. He awakens our imaginations and we delight in the possibilities. He awakens our actual creativity. These RED threads are 'da bomb in terms of shear, forum entertainment.

[Keith Walters]

This is precisely why journalists are so fond of using phrases such as "The new generation of" or "The New Breed of" or "The Latest in XXX" and so on.

 

Because it's new, nobody can really gainsay what they've written, because hardly anybody knows anything about it. Those who do, and dare to suggest there might be inadequacies in the journalist's coverage, are easily dismissed as Luddites or XXX-haters, or only having an interest in maintaining the Status Quo and so on.

[Tim Carroll]

As far as Citizen Jannard is concerned: He's a marketing guy. That's his gig, babe.

 

THREADJACK

 

Jannard was one of the marketing geniuses behind the Oakley sunglasses. A perfect example of marketing taken to a new level.

 

I remember back in the 1980's, when I was still racing bicycles, Oakley Blades were the sunglasses to have on the bike (and they did work extremely well). But their cost was a premium, something like $75, which back in 1987 was pretty expensive for a pair of plastic sunglasses.

 

It was funny, you could buy replacement parts from Oakley for them, in fact you could buy the lens (which was one piece) along with the nose guard, for $20. And you could buy the ear stems/arms, for like $15. Which means, for $35, you could have a whole pair of Oakley Blades, except for the little piece of plastic that ran across the top of the lens(something that probably costs 5¢ in plastic).

 

So if you break it down, you could buy every part of a pair of Oakley Blades for $35, except that little piece of plastic, or you could buy the whole pair of Oakley Blades, with that piece of plastic, for $75. So they were basically selling that little 5¢ piece of plastic for $40. Marketing genius.

 

END OF THREADJACK.

 

I now return you to the regular rant about everything RED.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Keith Walters]

I remember a strange person at an even stranger place where I used to work.

 

He was always buying expensive sunglasses that cost a couple of hundred dollars (I think they were Ray-Bans), and he was forever losing them in his perennially substance-abused state.

 

Every time he would buy a new pair he would go up to one of the lens technicians and pay him $5 to carefully scrape the brand name off under a microscope (it was usually in white paint) "so no-one would steal them"!

 

The fact that removing the logo removed the only thing that really distinguished them from sunglasses costing 80% less was entirely lost on him!

 

The lenses are just pieces of "zero prescription" tinted plastic. I always found a cheap pair of Polaroids gave much better glare reduction.

 

As far as UV protection goes, the reality is that it's very hard to get UV to pass through any sort of glass or plastic. UV transmissive glass has to have a very high quartz content and is very hard to make.

[Tom Lowe]

This thread is going downhill very fast.

 

[K Borowski]

This thread is going downhill very fast.

 

 

Tom, just a friendly jibe here, but have you noticed this tends to be a commonality that many of your threads share?

 

As to the "thumbs down", actuallly, there was no such thing as thumbs up or thumbs down. The Renaissance painters screwed up, and Hollywood always screws anything they film up in terms of historical accuracy, so they followed suit. Any sticking out of a thumb was an indication of the letter "I", short for "Iugulo" pronounced you-gyu-lo, which means "kill him". :P

 

Now as for you, I'm going to give you an "I" for constantly trying to shake up the world. What do you need to prove, my man? If you feel the need to distinguish yourself in a revolution, go to a third-world country and distinguish yourself as being ruthless in battle.

 

Otherwise, there is no need to glamorize Jim Jannard's mid-life crisis as a "Revolution". It is certainly a technological improvement, and a reshaping of the digital cinema industry, but please quit trying to burry film.

 

It is quite obvious from your screen grabs that you don't have a problem with the results film can produce. If so then why be so quick to dismiss its future importance? You obviously don't have a problem with the results it is capable of producing, unlike others here.

 

Digital is going to continue to improve resolution wise, and will always have the advantage of cost.

 

Film is going to continue to improve resolution-wise, and will (probably) always have the advantage of color and dynamic range.

 

Enough said.

[Tom Lowe]

there is no need to glamorize Jim Jannard's mid-life crisis as a "Revolution".

 

Hahahah. Man, I should quote this as my signature at reduser. :lol: